Críticas ao ‚Tree Thinking‛: elucidando o significado das relações filogenéticas

The "Tree Thinking" is regarded as the dominant methodology in current Systematic Biology. However, criticisms of the procedures carried out by it are diverse. Here the criticisms made by Fitzhugh regarding its philosophical basis and the consequences of such modifications are presented and defended. Thus, the present work aims to demonstrate that "Tree Thinking", as it has been used, is incomplete because it does not recognize that phylogenetic relationships are of the causal type previously summarized in an explanatory sketch (cladogram). In addition, to support such an argument, a discussion on the definition and objectives of Systematic Biology and ‚Tree Thinking‛ is provided. As a result, it is possible to observe confusion between classifying and systematizing the knowledge by those who follow "Tree Thinking". In addition, ‚Tree Thinking‛ fails to provide causal explanations regarding the origin and fixation of the characteristics studied. In this way, ‚Tree Thinking‛ can be considered an incomplete practice within Systematic Biology and, therefore, the application of the proposals of Fitzhugh are recommended.