[Previous by date - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Next by date - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Previous by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
[Next by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:14:42 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Cc: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Apomorphy-based definitions
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, David Marjanovic wrote: > > > Coming to think of it, apomorphy-based definitions _are_ circular, aren't > > they? > > How are they circular? Sorry, thinking error of mine :-] > Now there IS another glaring problem. Characters do not, typically, > suddenly emerge fully-formed, but, rather, develop in tiny increments. So > defining a certain trait should be EXTREMELY specific, and even then it > may be prone to complications. True. So it was of some good that I erroneously brought up this topic :-)