Message 2002-01-0014: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)

Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:06:11 +0100

[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
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').   


> 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 

Fusion organisms should fall inside both parent clades.


Hope for a discussion. Cheers,

Peter A Cejchan
Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ
<cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>


Feedback to <> is welcome!