"in his commentary...Ashlock did not explore one relatively simple
purpose: to define terms with direct reference to a concept, or diagram
of relationships (kinship) ... Ashlock maintains that 'Hennig's definition
of monophyly specifically excludes the stem ancestor of the group... this
seemingly trivial omission is the real source of the confusion between
paraphyly and polyphyly as used by cladists'. Ashlock then proposes to
'correct Hennig's omission by rearranging my 1971 definition with minor
terminological changes to suit cladists*)'. Yet Hull states that
"Hennig's principles of classification are extremely straightforward".
*note that here even Ashlock reveals that there is need for unified
terminology and not the semantic pluralism that forms part of the basis of
Paddy's argument.
"I have never doubted that Ashlock's purpose in as he states it: to
contribute 'to evolutionary systematics'... indeed, Ashlock's commitment
to that school is exemplified by his asserion that 'a group... such as the
birds and crocodilians together is not a natural phenomenon that needs a
scientific explanation'..."
