Message 2001-02-0013: Re: apomorphy-based names

Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:12:21 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:12:21 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: "David M. Hillis" <dhillis@mail.utexas.edu>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: apomorphy-based names

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, David M. Hillis wrote:
> My apologies to Jonathan Wagner for misinterpreting his proposed 
> recommendations as support in favor of apomorphy-based names. I agree 
	No need for an apology. I'm sorry if my post came off cross...
if I was strident, it was mostly in not wishing to see the proposals lost
in a debate which I felt I might be placed on the wrong side of
inadvertantly. :)

> I think this is a reasonable recommendation, although I'm not 
> completely convinced that any specifier necessarily ever 
> unambiguously exhibits (or lacks?) a particular apomorphy.

	Which is, of course, the crux of most problems with
apomorphy-based definitions in the first place. Since this is
just a recommendation, failure to unambiguously identify the feature is
not ground for redefinition. Maybe this should be in the text of the
recommendation?.

	Jonathan R. Wagner




  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!