Australopithecus and orangutans

[Herbert R. Jacobson]

Jason,

What kind of argument is: " if molecular characters can never be used for
evolutionary analysis, then why do they so frequently give phylogenies
that are congruent with "real cladistic analyses"? "

For the same reason a stopped clock is correct twice a day is the answer to 
that argument. What do you mean by frequent? Since molecular phylogenies for 
any group are proposed more frequently than character phylogenies, it doesn't 
surprise me that agreements occur.

As for As and Ts being the same as morphological characters, I can't disagree 
more. In order to obtain a fully resolved cladogram with morphological 
characters, it's necessary to have at least as many characters as taxa. Using 
As and Ts  would limit the cladogram to not more than 4 or 5 taxa if it's to 
be fully resolved. Since this isn't the case As and Ts can't be the same or 
equivalent to morphological character.

If you meant sequences then I think the problem is worse because most 
molecular studies use only one sequence, unless of course the whack  up the 
sequence in to subsequences by some a priori rule.

Herb