Abstract
Mooi & Gill (2010; hereafter M&G) presented a discussion of current methods in molecular systematics and contended that methodologies employed in the analysis of molecular data do not identify homology or synapomorphy, are phenetic in nature, and haveresulted in a categorical movement "away from an intimate understanding of character distribution, homology, and the meaning of evidence" (M&G, p. 26). If they are correct in their assessment, systematic ichthyology (and systematic research in general)truly is in a state of crisis, and many of the advancements that have been made in the last two to three decades have, in reality, been steps backward. As with any discipline, papers pointing out the dangers of dogmatic thinking and the perils of uncritical analysis are often welcome "wake up calls" and serve a genuine and necessary purpose in scientific literature. Unfortunately, the paper by M&G appears nothing more than a rehashing of long-settled debates with not-so-subtle hints of deeply rooted animosity towards a few specific researchers. Their paper not only misses their intended mark (presumably to ensure the scientific integrity of systematic ichthyology), but also demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how molecular data are accumulated, analyzed and interpreted.
NSTL