{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01261467889908257, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.984, '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}}
Cladistics and the land plants: A response to Robinson

The reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships should be based not on belief but on an explicit and logical analysis of all available characters. Hennigian phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) provides a framework for evaluating putative homologies characterizing particular hierarchical levels, determining relationships of taxa sharing congruent patterns of homologies, and constructing a classification based on this information. Fossils can and should be included in the analysis if enough of the relevant characters are preserved; this is not currently possible for early land plants because of the fragmentary fossil record. To avoid circularity, adaptive and functional considerations should be addressed only after a phylogenetic hypothesis based on patterns on patterns of shared homologies is available.