[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:06:11 +0100
From: cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)
> Just for the record (and sorry for the nit-picking): It is not clear that > Eubacteria actually is a clade (That is, if you force Eubacteria to be a > clade under a phylogenetic definition, it might turn out to be > indistinguishable in practical terms from 'Biota'). Agree. > Meanwhile the 'base > of eukaryotes' workers are toying with all sorts of 'fusion' models for > the origin of eukaryotes. It's not merely toying. It's a sound hypothesis. Even if it fails, there EXIST quite 'no-doubt' other fusion organisms, e.g., lichens. It turns out that the phylogenetic tree is not a strict tree, but a loosely connected digraph (although almost tree-like, it has loops). PhyloCode should reflect that. What is the opinion of other readers of the list? Fusion organisms should fall inside both parent clades. [snip] Hope for a discussion. Cheers, ++pac -- Peter A Cejchan paleobiologist Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ <cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>