Which side of the tree is more basal?

On basal clades and ancestral areas

“…It is not the aim of the present correspondence to repeat Ebach's (1999) or Morrone's (2002) argumentation against ancestral area analysis, but to reinforce the criticisms already made, adding the points raised by Krell & Cranston (2004) and Crisp & Cook (2005) concerning the relative position of Ômore basalÕ branches in cladograms, which is critical to Bremer's (1992) analytical procedure.…”

“…This way, area A is the most probable ancestral area and, according to Bremer's method, it has to be topologically basal, as stated by the progression rule. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Krell & Cranston (2004), Ôa clade branching off near the base is a basal clade, isn't it? Does this make sense?…”

Reflections on the Phylogenetic Position and Generic Status of Abbott's Booby 'Papasula abbotti' (Aves, Sulidae)

“…It appears to me that Olson and Warheit [23] viewed a cladogram as a 'ladder of evolutionary progress' wherein the 'species-poor' sister group or branch is referred to as 'basal' or, as they [23] themselves says, 'primitive', and misinterpreted as having characters of the common ancestor. In a cladogram, all terminal taxa exhibit a mix of plesiomorphic and apomorphic character states and no objective reason exists to assume that a 'species-poor' lineage has more plesiomorphies than its 'species-rich' sister lineage [24]. The so-called 'basal-position' within an ingroup exactly means sister to the remaining taxa [24][25][26].…”

“…In a cladogram, all terminal taxa exhibit a mix of plesiomorphic and apomorphic character states and no objective reason exists to assume that a 'species-poor' lineage has more plesiomorphies than its 'species-rich' sister lineage [24]. The so-called 'basal-position' within an ingroup exactly means sister to the remaining taxa [24][25][26].…”

Why coelacanths are not ‘living fossils’

“…Insights & Perspective ..... of modern studies [55,56], we would like to recall here that the coelacanths, like any extant species, should not be considered as 'ancient', or 'primitive', or 'basal', or 'early branching' in the context of a phylogenetic tree [46,57]. Indeed, if Latimeria is often interpreted as an isolated species that diverged before the diversification of tetrapods, it is due to the combined misleading effect of the chosen panel of species and a misinterpretation of the divergence between Actinistia and Tetrapoda.…”