Biological systematics in terms of cladistics is a severe misunderstanding

If cladists were cartographers, then they would battle about which map that is the true map. Cladists obviously lack ability to straighten out the relation between reality and maps (ie, descriptions) of it, instead confusing them to the extent of believing that maps of reality can BE reality (ie,a belief in a true map).

The problem with traditional maps is that a 2-D representation of a 3-D reality has to err in either area, distance or angle, because the dimensional reduction from 3 to 2 can't preserve all three. The problem with phylogenetic illustrations is that a 2-D representation of a 4-D reality (then including time) is that every single representation is contradictory, because there are several just as correct 2-D representations of a single 4-D reality. And, since illustrations of phylogenies are 2-D representations of a 4-D reality, there are several just as correct illustrations of the phylogeny of biodiversity. The cladistic conflation of illustration (ie, representation) with the illustrated (ie, the represent) may be "natural", but is none the less contradictory. A single true such representation simply can't be found, because all of them are contradictory. The "natural" belief that such thing can be found is simply wrong.

Biological systematics in terms of cladistics is thus a severe misunderstanding. The illustration of the origin of biodiversity in the form of a dichotomously branching graph does not equal evolution, but is merely an illustration of it. A classification of this process in terms of the illustration (ie, cladistics) is contradictory, because there are several just as correct ways to illustrate one and the same process (see Jeremy Martin et al.). Abandoning the scientific Linnean system (ie, evolutionary taxonomy) for a cladistic classification would thus be a severe mistake.