[Previous by date - RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - Re: RE: On the Other Phylogenetic Systematics, Nixon and Carpenter]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: RE: crown clade convention]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:16:12 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question
In response to Phil's latest posting (with which I otherwise hold almost = identical views), I guess I don't see the need to modify the definition if = one of the specifiers turns out to be a hybrid (and outside of the clade = in question). It doesn't matter how you draw (interpret) the phylogeny = (i.e., whether you represent species 3 in two places or in one place with = two branches), the LEAST inclusive clade is the same in both cases (and = not the clade identified by Gerry). This can be seen by comparing Figures = 1 and 2 in my previous message. Given that the clade to which the name = applies is unambiguous, there seems no need to emend the definition. =20 Kevin 12 Oct 2000