{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03395585738539898, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012224108658743633, 'mean_word_length': 5.3218884120171674, '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}}
THE SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE WILLI HENNIG SOCIETY

The seventh annual meeting of the Willi Hennig Society convened August 24-27 1988, at the Department of Biology, University of Stockholm. Around 125 people registered, and 31 talks, a workshop, and a round-table discussion were scheduled. As previously, the meeting was organized into symposia: Cladistics of fungi, Parsimony computer program workshop, Pacific biogeography, Quantitative phylogenetics, Cladistics and species concepts, and Cladistics in ecology. One afternoon of contributed papers also took place. This is the second time that The Willi Hennig Society has met outside the United States for its annual meeting, and it is impressive that, apart from a naturally strong Swedish representation, 200,6 of the participants were Americans, by far the second largest group. The morning of the first day of the meeting featured the first international symposium on the Cladistics of Fungi, organized by A. Tehler. A. Tehler (“A cladistic outline of the Eumycota”; Botaniska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet, S-106 91 Stockholm), after providing an overview oftraditional opposition to the use of cladistic methodology in mycology (a feature of all disciplines penetrated by cladistics), presented his new cladistic analysis of the Eumycota (Tehler, 1988). Twenty-one terminal taxa and 5 1 characters were analysed, and the Oomycetes was used as the out-group. Many of the terminal taxa were, however, potentially paraphyletic as they have no autapomorphies. Quite unbelievably, but doubtless correct, only one cladogram was found by PAUP for the data-set! Two synapomorphies characterized the whole group: “weight” of25S rRNA (one wonders for how many taxa this character is known) and chitin cell walls. D. Hibbett (“Phylogenctic relationships of Agaricales”; Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706) presented a joint study, with R. Vilgalys and B. D. Mishler, on the relationships of the Agaricales, and raised two important questions. Is the Agaricales monophyletic, and, if so, what is its sister-group? Both morphological data and molecular data (5s rRNA) were used in the analysis. An interesting observation was the fact that it made little difference whether or not the transition-transversion bias was taken into account in the phylogenetic analysis of the molecular data. The analysis of the combined matrix of morphological and molecular data produced one cladogram, whereas the molecular and morphological data analysed separately each gave numerous, equally parsimonious cladograms. The single most parsimonious cladogram from the combined data supported the monophyly of the Agaricales. The best guess on the sister-group of the Agaricales is the Gasteromycetales or the Tulasnellales. K. Hoiland (“A new approach to the phylogeny of the order Boletales (Basidiomycotina) by means of the parsimony cladistic method”; Applied ecology