[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by date - reply to David M on species]
[Previous by subject - Repost: Proposal about names with prefixes (and suffixes?)]
[Next by subject - Sereno05]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>
To: cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--Boundary_(ID_kfB9oT5qcfPIVHW0mUEeuA)
The original message was received at Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
from cej@localhost
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
phylocode@
ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
(reason: 550 5.1.1 <ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>... User unknown)
(expanded from: ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
553 5.1.3 phylocode@... Hostname required
... while talking to [127.0.0.1]:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 5.1.1 <ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>... User unknown
550 5.1.1 ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu... User unknown
<<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCPT (recipient)
--Boundary_(ID_kfB9oT5qcfPIVHW0mUEeuA)
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; cejchan.gli.cas.cz
Arrival-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
Final-Recipient: RFC822; phylocode@
X-Actual-Recipient: rfc822; "553 Hostname required"@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.3
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
Final-Recipient: RFC822; ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; [127.0.0.1]
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.1.1 <ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
--Boundary_(ID_kfB9oT5qcfPIVHW0mUEeuA)
Content-type: message/rfc822
Return-path: <cej>
Received: (from cej@localhost) by cejchan.gli.cas.cz (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5)
id g0OG9tvM000682; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:09:55 +0100
From: cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)
In-reply-to: <007101c1a4ea$86d6a140$b4432fd5@chello.at>; from
david.marjanovic@gmx.at on Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:19:28PM +0100
To: ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Message-id: <20020124170955.B614@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0201232022220.25992-100000@dinosaur.umbc.edu>
<Pine.OSF.4.21.0201240954570.9708-100000@hades.biochem.dal.ca>
<20020124160611.A614@cejchan.gli.cas.cz>
<007101c1a4ea$86d6a140$b4432fd5@chello.at>
> > 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.
>
> Or we are picky and say "hmm, the fungus of a lichen is a fungus, the "alga"
> is a chlorophyte, cyanobacterium, whatever, the mitochondria of both are
> alpha-proteobacteria, the chloroplasts are cyanobacteria, and maybe the
> cilia and centrosomes are spirochaetes." Of course I think it would be
> nonsense to name clades of mitochondria, chloroplasts or suchlike, as their
> topologies must be the same as those of their hosts.
Right.
>
> BTW, maybe it should not be compulsory to refer every organism that can be
> put into a clade to a species. Especially among fossils it is usually
> impossible to determine what species are (because only the morphospecies
> concept is applicable).
Okay. I suspect many extant species are in fact morphospecies, too. Aren't
they???
++pac
--
Peter A Cejchan
paleobiologist
Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ
<cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>
--Boundary_(ID_kfB9oT5qcfPIVHW0mUEeuA)--