[Previous by date - Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:45:46 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question
Kevin wrote: >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. > I think that what Gerry had in mind (and he should correct me if I am misinterpreting) is that some of the genome of species 3 is in clade A and some in clade B. If so, the least inclusive clade that includes the full genome of species 3 is the larger one identified by Gerry, thus the application of the name for clade Z is ambiguous. Phil Philip D. Cantino Professor and Chair Department of Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 U.S.A. Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126 Fax: (740) 593-1130 e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu