[Previous by date - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - Fwd: RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by subject - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:43:00 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: gerrymoore@bbg.org, cantino@ohiou.edu
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question
A couple of things: First, I don't doubt that species of hybrid origin may pose potential = problems as specifiers, and I look forward to Gerry's future examples. I = just don't think that the current example is problematical enough to = warrant emendation though conservation of a new definition based on = different specifiers. If I was a member of the committee voting on this, = I would vote against it. Thus, Phil's other solution seems preferable to = me (since Gerry also seems to agree with it)--that is, to state that a = hybrid species belongs fully to all clades (incluidng non-nested ones) to = which its parents belong. Perhaps Gerry's future examples will present = evidence that this approach has problems. Second, I hope that Gerry wasn't offended by the words I chose to argue = against his position in my previous postings. I certainly didn't mean to = belittle his contributions. In fact, I take all his postings seriously, = because I consider him a thoughtful worker and one of the most important = new contributors to these discussions. Phil can confirm that I have made = several such statements outside of this list in private e-mails to him. Kevin 17 Oct 2000 =20