Should I include articles that critique phylogenetic methods as a class rather than specific applications? Am open to changing the scope to include them but it does take the focus away from the original aim of this project which was to catalogue published phylogenetic studies.
e.g.
Bateman, R., Goddard, I., O’Grady, R., Funk, V. A., Mooi, R., Kress, W. J., Cannell, P., Armstrong, D. F., Bayard, D., Blount, B. G., Callaghan, C. A., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., Mountain, J., Greenberg, J. H., Jacobs, K., Mizoguchi, Y., Nunez, M., & Oswalt, R. L. (1990). Speaking of Forked Tongues: The Feasibility of Reconciling Human Phylogeny and the History of Language [and Comments]. Current Anthropology, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/203800
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2001). Using phylogenetically based comparative methods in anthropology: More questions than answers. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 10(3), 99–111. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1020
Donohue, M., Denham, T., & Oppenheimer, S. (2012). Consensus and the lexicon in historical linguistics. Diachronica, 29(4), 538–546. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.29.4.06don
Moon, J. H. (1994). Putting Anthropology Back Togethier Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory 925. American Anthropologist, 96(4), 925–948. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110
Pereltsvaig, A. & Lewis, M.W. The Indo-European controversy: Facts and fallacies in historical linguistics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Testart, A. (2013). Reconstructing Social and Cultural Evolution. Current Anthropology, 54(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1086/668679
Should I include articles that critique phylogenetic methods as a class rather than specific applications? Am open to changing the scope to include them but it does take the focus away from the original aim of this project which was to catalogue published phylogenetic studies.
e.g.