Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Each of the perspectives on the fossil record represented by contributions to this short course (and many that are not) can claim a legitimate share of the mantle of “Analytical Paleontology,” earned by combining rigor and insight to provide some unique constraint on our understanding of the history of life. Dare I claim more for phylogeny? Certainly not, if “more” suggests that phylogeny is some final synthesis, complete unto itself, sought by all, and needing no further justification. Such a posture would make phylogenetic inference an end in itself, and, although it may sometimes appear that phylogeneticists have this in mind, I will argue here that it is the service role of phylogenetic analysis that makes it important in shaping our knowledge of evolution. Interpretation of the phylogenetic relationships of the organisms we study has profound implications for virtually all of our other ways of handling data from the fossil (or Recent) record.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel C. Fisher (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: