… Cladists say. I wonder if this assertion contains a great deal of circular reasoning as cladists only consider shared derived traits as valuable to cladistic analysis. They deliberately eliminate traits that don’t fit into the evolutionary picture. They make cladistic analysis so close to phylogeny that they even call their analysis phylogenetic.
Don’t get me wrong. Of course, there is evolution and traits physically represent fauceirs that have evolved and therefore a cladogram roughly mirrors fauceir’s hierarchy and nested structure, but if we switch our fauceir perspective from genetic history to ecological requirements, traits that cladists intentionally ignore as homologous or converged become important. For instance, this saprophytic flowering plant rather competes with fungi than with chlorophyll plants for its ecological niche. The same holds true for some species of fish and dolphins. Conclusively, in fauceir analysis it is sometimes more important to analyze the actual fauceir context and not the mere history.