[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