Homology assessment in parsimony and model‐based analyses: two sides of the same coin

The present paper is mainly concerned with homology assessment through phylogenetic analyses. It raises a fundamental question: What are the epistemological differences between modern parsimony and model‐based analyses in relation to homology assessment and phylogenetic inference? Although these methods usually achieve concordant topological results, they may generate discordant inferences of character evolution from the same datasets. This indicates that method selection has serious implications for evolutionary scenarios and classificatory arrangements. Notwithstanding that parsimony and model‐based approaches use the Hennigian concepts of monophyly and synapomorphy, they employ different epistemological ways of dealing with the monophyly/synapomorphy relationship. Independently of their differences, these analyses should take into account all relevant evidence in support of the phylogenetic inferences. A focus on morphological homologues means that they must be included in data matrices, evaluated as part of the phylogenetic analysis, and cannot be ignored in calculation of the tree(s) length (parsimony), maximum‐likelihood (maximum‐likelihood), and posterior probabilities (Bayes).