A recently published cladistic analysis of metazoan relationships based on 77 embryological and morphological characters is shown to be defective with respect to both methodological issues and the interpretation of certain characters. Consequently, many conclusions of this analysis are not supported by the data. Alternative phylogenetic hypotheses are therefore proposed, based on a re-evaluation of an adapted data set.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Backeljau et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: