Syst. Biol. 50(4):465–467, 2001 The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics JOSEPH FELSENSTEIN Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98919 USA; E-mail:
[email protected] Statistical inference of phylogenies almost of a small band of pioneers exploring new didn’t happen. The story of the origin, territory. growth, and spread of “statistical phyloge- The stage would now seem set for a grad- netics” needs to be told, because it is so ual spread of statistical methods, but reality strange. It is not the straightforward story of was not to be this simple. In 1969 I began gradual spread that one might imagine. to attend the annual Numerical Taxonomy It starts with the development of numeri- conferences convened by Bob Sokal. In cal methods in systematics, whose modern 1971, at that meeting in Ann Arbor, Gareth proponents were Sokal and Sneath. Their Nelson advocated Willi Hennig’s strictly work, embodied in their book Principles of monophyletic classication. It became clear Numerical Taxonomy, set off an explosion of that some systematists wanted to take a well- work by mathematical clusterers, but did not dened, almost algorithmic approach. Hen- win many converts in systematics. In the nig set forth well-dened methods for infer- early 1960s two groups started work on nu- ring phylogenies (provided there was no in- merical inference of phylogenies. Edwards ternal conict in the data), an approach with and Cavalli-Sforza, working on trees of enormous appeal to a new generation of mor- human populations and using gene frequen- phological systematists. cies, invented parsimony and distance ma- The difculty was that although well- trix methods.