It is commonly asserted that shared morphological aberrancies have special status in determining genetic relatedness, substituting for or even preferable to the lexico-phonological evidence from regular sound correspondence between forms with similar meanings. This claim is often attributed to or buttressed by quotes from the work of Antoine Meillet. In this paper, we review what Meillet actually said on the subject, and conclude that he is less than explicit with regard to how one identifies shared aberrancies. This inexplicitness is pernicious, because it gives license to assert genetic relatedness on the basis of morphological similarities that are open to other accounts. We give some examples from recent Australianist literature.
[As we are currently (July 2006) in the midst of a major revision of this paper, we would appreciate it if anyone wishing to refer to the 2002 version would let us know before doing so!]