Dear Jonathan Wagner

I use a simple but good software product program WinClada. Regards, Sergey

State-of-the-art (sometimes cutting edge or leading edge) refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time. However, in some contexts it can also refer to a level of development reached at any particular time as a result of the common methodologies employed at the time.

The term has been used since 1910, and has become both a common term in advertising and marketing, and a legally significant phrase with respect to both patent law and tort liability.

In advertising, the phrase is often used to convey that a product is made with the best or latest available technology, but it has been noted that "the term 'state-of-the-art' requires little proof on the part of advertisers", as it is considered mere puffery.The use of the term in patent law, by contrast, "does not connote even superiority, let alone the superlative quality the ad writers would have us ascribe to the term

vertebrate paleobiogeography that used a phylogenetic approach. ... Mapping the geographic states to the ancestral ... deposited it in Asia, an excellent example of geo-dispersal.

vertebrate paleobiogeography that used a phylogenetic approach. ... Mapping the geographic states to the ancestral ... deposited it in Asia, an excellent example of geo-dispersal.

check some of Guido Grimm's work on phylogenetics and network analysis:

Article Intertwining phylogenetic trees and networks

Article The fossil Osmundales (Royal Ferns) - A phylogenetic network...

You may find useful the theoretical aspects developed in Lieberman (2003) for invertebrates and especially Brooks Parsimony Analysis (BPA).

https://eeb.ku.edu/sites/eeb.ku.edu/files/files/bsl/annurevecolsys.pdf

I wonder if the good old method of Ranking and Scaling would work here for initial phylogenetic grouping in large fossil population / samples.

I liked the comments about 'state of the art' which can mean anything at all. Reference to 'state of the art' often implies the most advanced or modern, but generally that just means the majority practice which has no necessary relationship to progress or quality.

In biogeography most people practice Darwinian biogeography involving centers of origin (so called ancestral areas) and dispersal according to whatever area-phylogeny algorithm is dreamed up (DEC, Brooks, DIVA etc. etc.). As far as I am concerned it is all pretty much garbage and these techniques can generate sequential dispersal for patterns where there is a phylogenetic grade in one area and more derived lineages in one or more other areas even though the pattern could also arise from sequential vicariance. Also the 'areas' are artificial units that have no existence in the real word.

To me the empirical relationship between actual localities and phylogeny is more scientifically defensible and in this regard I would hope to see precise distribution maps of the taxa. Also, it is important to note the extent of allopatry and range overlap. Many papers attribute allopatry to sequential dispersal which sets up all sorts of conceptual muddles, not least why such cases may show geographic correlations with tectonics.

@John Grehan, yeah, sometimes Wikipedia really nails it on the head. Back when the entries didn't have to be fully referenced, the Scientology and Parsimony articles were fantastic. Thanks to all so far for some very useful input so far! I've also received some direct input from Guido Grimm (mentioned by @Steffan Kiel), and his group's application of networks is probably the most original approach, but I am biased by my own research into network phylogenetics. My colleagues and I are currently exploring all of the suggestions made here, but I am not optimistic that the overall standard (or state or the art ;) ) has really moved much since I last explored the topic.