| Abstract: | The study of large-scale evolutionary patterns in the fossil record has benefited from a diversity of approaches, including analysis of taxonomic data, ecology, geography, and morphology. Although genealogy is an important component of macroevolution, recent visions of phylogenetic analysis as replacing rather than supplementing other approaches are short-sighted. The ability of traditional Linnaean taxa to document evolutionary patterns is mainly an empirical rather than a theoretical issue, yet the use of these taxa has been dismissed without thorough evaluation of their empirical properties. Phylogenetic analysis can help compensate for some of the fossil record's imperfections. However, the shortcomings of the phylogenetic approach have not been adequately acknowledged, and we still lack a rigorous comparison between the phylogenetic approach and probabilistic approaches based on sampling theory. Important inferences about the history of life based on nongenealogical data have later been corroborated with genealogical and other analyses, suggesting that we risk an enormous loss of knowledge and understanding if we categorically dismiss nonphylogenetic data. |
