A CRITIQUE OF WAGNER GROUNDPLAN‐DIVERGENCE STUDIES AND A COMPARISON WITH OTHER METHODS OF PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS

Abstract

Summary Wagner groundplan‐divergence analysis provides a suitable method for reconstructing phylogenies given suitable criteria for determining primitive and derived characters in a series of homologous characters. Approximately half of the papers surveyed determined such polarities using an out‐group criterion while the other half employed criteria that were suspect, simply incorrect or none at all. Four data sets were used to compare the Wagner groundplan‐divergence method with Hennig argumentation, Wagner 78 (a computerized Wagner algorithm) and CLINCH 3 (a compatibility algorithm). Hennig argumentation and Wagner 78 performed in a similar manner as Wagner groundplan‐divergence. CLINCH provided solutions that were either incomplete or incompatible with the results obtained by other methods. We conclude that compatibility analysis is not to be preferred and may be misleading.