Abstract Abstract—Cladistics has changed considerably with the availability of new methods and sources of data, and the increasing realization that cladograms are relevant to all manner of historical questions. Criticisms of, and justifications for, consensus hypotheses in phylogenetic inference are reviewed. The conclusion is overwhelmingly against taxonomic congruence which deliberately seeks consensus propositions. The total evidence approach is not so burdened. A preference for suboptimal cladograms is also critized, as is the protocol for mapping characters of special interest onto a phylogenetic hypothesis derived from other evidence. The bootstrap and jackknife resampling techniques are questioned because their underlying assumptions are violated and they are sensitive to character frequencies. These findings suggest that cladistics is being redefined in ways that contradict the practices and principles responsible for its pre-eminence in phylogenetic inference.