The tree of life and the rock of ages: Are we getting better at estimating phylogeny?

Bioessays 24 (3):203-207 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent paper,(1) palaeontologist Mike Benton claimed that our ability to reconstruct accurately the tree of Life may not have improved significantly over the last 100 years. This implies that the cladistic and molecular revolutions may have promulgated as much bad “black box” science as rigorous investigation. Benton's assessment was based on the extent to which cladograms (typically constructed with reference only to distributions of character states) convey the same narrative as the geochronological ages of fossil taxa (an independent data set). Fossil record quality varies greatly between major clades, and the palaeontological dating “yardstick” may be more appropriate for some groups than others. BioEssays 24:203–207, 2002. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.; DOI 10.1002/bies.10065.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Trashing life’s tree.L. R. Franklin-Hall - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (4):689-709.
Species, Genes, and the Tree of Life.Joel D. Velasco - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):599-619.
Rand, Rush, and Rock. [REVIEW]Chris Matthew Sciabarra - 2002 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 4 (1):161 - 185.
Edward Hitchcock’s Pre-Darwinian “Tree of Life”.J. David Archibald - 2009 - Journal of the History of Biology 42 (3):561 - 592.
The Rock of Ages.Paul Carus - 1910 - The Monist 20 (2):231-241.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-23

Downloads
13 (#1,006,512)

6 months
4 (#818,853)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations