Authors: Rafael Gomes de Souza
The “Tree Thinking” is regarded as the dominant methodology in current Systematic Biology. However, criticisms of the procedures carried out by it are diverse. Here the criticisms made by Fitzhugh regarding its philosophical basis and the consequences of such modifications are presented and defended. Thus, the present work aims to demonstrate that “Tree Thinking”, as it has been used, is incomplete because it does not recognize that phylogenetic relationships are of the causal type previously summarized in an explanatory sketch (cladogram). In addition, to support such an argument, a discussion on the definition and objectives of Systematic Biology and “Tree Thinking” is provided. As a result, it is possible to observe confusion between classifying and systematizing the knowledge by those who follow "Tree Thinking". In addition, “Tree Thinking” fails to provide causal explanations regarding the origin and fixation of the characteristics studied. In this way, “Tree Thinking” can be considered an incomplete practice within Systematic Biology and, therefore, the application of the proposals of Fitzhugh are recommended.
Comments: 15 Pages.
[v1] 2019-07-15 07:55:39
Unique-IP document downloads: 3 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.