Phylogenetics and Ecology: As Many Characters as Possible Should Be Included in the Cladistic Analysis1

As many data as possible must be included in any scientific analysis, provided that they follow the logical principles on which this analysis is based. Phylogenetic analysis is based on the basic principle of evolution, i.e., descent with modification. Consequently, ecological characters or any other nontraditional characters must be included in phylogenetic analyses, provided that they can plausibly be postulated heritable. The claim of Zrzavý (1997, Oikos 80, 186–192) or Luckow and Bruneau (1997, Cladistics 13, 145–151) that any character of interest should be included in the analysis is thus inaccurate. Many characters, broadly defined or extrinsic (such as distribution areas), cannot be considered as actually heritable. It is argued that we should better care for the precise definition and properties of characters of interest than decide a priori to include them in any case in the analysis. The symmetrical claim of de Queiroz (1996, Am. Nat. 148, 700–708) that some characters of interest should better be excluded from analyses to reconstruct their history is similarly inaccurate. If they match the logical principles of phylogenetic analysis, there is no acceptable reason to exclude them. The different statistical testing strategies of Zrzavý (1997) and de Queiroz (1996) aimed at justifying inclusion versus exclusion of characters are ill‐conceived, leading respectively to Type II and Type I errors. It is argued that phylogenetic analyses should not be constrained by testing strategies that are downstream of the logical principles of phylogenetics. Excluding characters and mapping them on an independent phylogeny produces a particular and suboptimal kind of secondary homology, the use of which can be justified only for preliminary studies dealing with broadly defined characters.