{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023007395234182416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.37696335078534, '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}}
On the Other “Phylogenetic Systematics”

De Queiroz and Gauthier, in a serial paper, argue that biological taxonomy is in a sad state, because taxonomists harbor “widely held belief” systems that are archaic and insufficient for modern classification, and that the bulk of practicing taxonomists are essentialists. Their paper argues for the scrapping of the current system of nomenclature, but fails to provide specific rules for the new “Phylogenetic Systematics”—instead we have been presented with a vague and sketchy manifesto based upon the assertion that “clades are individuals” and therefore must be pointed at with proper names, rather than diagnosed by synapomorphies. They claim greater stability for “node pointing,” yet even their own examples show that the opposite is true, and their node pointing system is only more stable in a purely metaphysical sense detached from characters, evidence, usage of names, and composition of groups. We will show that the node pointing system is actually far LESS stable than the existing Linnaean System when stability is measured by the rational method of determining the net change in taxa (species) included in a particular group under different classifications.