Molecular and morphological data sets have yielded conflicting phylogenies for the Metazoa. So far, no general explanation for the existence of this conflict has been suggested. However, I believe that a neglected aspect of metazoan cladistics has introduced a systematic and substantial bias into morphological phylogenetic analyses. Most characters used for metazoan cladistics are coded as binary absence/presence characters. For most of these characters, the absence states are assumed to be uninformative default plesiomorphies, if they are defined at all. This character coding strategy could seriously underestimate the number of informative apomorphic absences or secondary character losses. Because nodes in morphological metazoan phylogenies are typically supported by relatively small numbers of characters each with a potentially strong impact on tree topology, failure to distinguish between primary absence and secondary loss of characters before a cladistic analysis may mislead morphological cladistics. This may falsely suggest conflict with molecular phylogenies, which are not sensitive to this bias. To test the existence of this bias, I compare the phylogenetic placement of a variety of metazoan taxa in molecular and morphological trees. In all instances investigated here, phylogenetic conflict can be resolved by allowing for secondary loss of morphological characters, which were assumed to be primitively absent in cladistic analyses. These findings suggest that we should be cautious in interpreting the results of morphological metazoan cladistic analyses and additionally illustrate the value of a more functional approach to comparative morphology in certain circumstances.