In this sense you're correct, but it is more often refered to as specificly futhark, outside cladistics, if talked about individually, in which case ''it'' may

In this sense you're correct, but it is more often refered to as specificly futhark, outside cladistics, if talked about individually, in which case ''it'' may be a subset that would not be refered to in the definite as alphabets, not at all. There are strong arguments for some changes in the order that we see, but that's overall uncertain, so the cladistics argument would be shaky anyway.