The use of parsimony in testing phylogenetic hypotheses

With the advance of cladistic theory differences in principle between it and other systematic techniques are few but of fundamental importance. In the mechanics of classification they are confined to ranking and the rejection of paraphyletic taxa. In cladistic analysis, leading to cladograms, trees and phylogeny reconstruction, inconsistencies in apparent synapomorphies are said to be resolved using Popper's hypothetico-deductive method together with the principle of parsi However, not only do cladists not use Popper's methodology, which is inconsistent with parsimony, but their use of parsimony is invalid as a test of phylo The only accepted extrinsic test of a classification is that enunciated by John Stuart Mill. It has been claimed that cladistic classifications yield the best results when judged by Mill's criteria, but this is only possibly the case with analytic classifications produced by numerical techniques. No satisfactory test exists in normal (synthetic) cladism for distinguishing synapomorphy from homoplasy. The effects of this are particularly dire in cladograms and classifications involving fossils in which a Stufenreihe arrangement is adopted.