We question recent claims that cladistic analysis is inapplicable in nemerteans (phylum Nemertea) due to a supposedly high degree of convergence. We further argue that terms like convergence and parallelism are historical sayings and only make sense in a phylogenetic context. Therefore, an approach aiming to produce phylogenetic hypotheses cannot be rejected on the grounds of a high degree of convergence before the actual hypothesis. Convergence is not an empirical observation, but a conclusion made after an analysis. We also discuss the view that knowledge of a character's function is a prerequisite for phylogenetic analysis and conclude that this is an invalid approach. Function, like any other way of sharpening our observations, helps in formulating non-phylogenetic hypotheses of homology, but the crucial test is congruence with other characters on a phylogeny.

A phylogeny for the 34 species we consider well enough described in the suborder Eureptantia (phylum Nemertea) is inferred by cladistic analysis based on 38 morphological characters. The phylogenetic reconstruction indicates that many previously recognised genera and families are paraphyletic. These findings are discussed and compared with earlier classifications. We also present an identification key to the species based on the cladistic analysis.

The origin and evolution of the eureptantic nemerteans is discussed from a biogeographic point of view. It is most likely that East Indian Ocean was part of the ancestral distribution of the Eureptantia. The area cladogram estimated by Brooks parsimony analysis (BPA) is to a high degree congruent with a vicariance explanation of the evolution of the Eureptantia and suggests an ancestral distribution concordant with the Tethys Sea. A general area cladogram based on a combined BPA analysis of eureptantic nemerteans and acanthuroid fishes is reconstructed and suggested as a hypothesis of the relationships between east Indian Ocean, west Indian Ocean, west Pacific Ocean, east Atlantic Ocean, west Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean. This tree is compared with cladograms from the same areas based on other taxa.

Although naming biological clades is a major activity in taxonomy, little attention has been paid to what these names actually refer to. In philosophy, definite descriptions have long been considered equivalent to the meaning of names and biological taxonomy is a scientific application of these ideas. One problem with definite descriptions as the meanings of names is that the name will refer to whatever fits the description rather than the intended individual (clade). Recent proposals for explicit phylogenetic definitions of clade names suffer from similar problems and we argue that clade names cannot be defined since they lack intension. Furthermore we stress the importance of "tree-thinking" for phylogenetic reference to work properly.

I review how some influential nemertean systematistshave perceived and illustrated phylogenetic trees andargue that the nineteenth century nemerteantaxonomists still influence many contemporarynemertean taxonomists to a high degree. By showing hownineteenth century systematics differs from moremodern views on trees, I hope to convey the advantagesof a cladistic approach to tree-thinking and nemerteansystematics. Furthermore I propose a systematizationof the Eureptantia that illustrates the cladisticapproach to tree-thinking but, more importantly, isalso a better representation of eureptantic phylogenythan previous classifications.