{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008595988538681949, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.412844036697248, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
OUTGROUPS AND ONTOGENY

Abstract— Common themes in some recent expositions of character phylogeny are attempts to prove that outgroup comparison is a method of the greatest generality, and that the ontogenetic criterion reduces to outgroup comparison. Another common theme is that pattern cladistics is wrongheaded in suggesting that ontogenetic data have a unique value for studies of character phylogeny. Analysis of particular examples that have been offered as proof of the themes shows them to be flawed and without significance. Arguments against pattern cladistics and the relevance of ontogeny stem from a concern for ideological purity and not for objective appraisal of relevant evidence.