[Previous by date - RE: interesting style of definition]
[Next by date - Re: interesting style of definition]
[Previous by subject - RE: interesting style of definition]
[Next by subject - RE: interesting style of definition]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:09:10 -0600
From: "Bryant, Harold MAH" <HBryant@mah.gov.sk.ca>
To: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>, -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: interesting style of definition
I confess that potential ambiguity regarding the meaning of "related" = had not occurred to me. However, given that the entire enterprise deals = with phylogeny, I think that most people would apply a phylogenetic meaning = to the word. But if one wants to avoid that potential misunderstanding, = the word "phylogenetically" could be added to modify "related."=20 Or what about the simplier wording: "the most inclusive crown clade = that includes A but not B." A definition for "crown clade" can certainly be added to the PhyloCode glossary. I don't think that the draft PhyloCode includes a definition of = "ancestor." Harold =20 --------------------------------------------------- Harold Bryant Royal Saskatchewan Museum 2340 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan=A0 S4P 3V7 Canada 306-787-2826 FAX 306-787-2645 -----Original Message----- From: T. Mike Keesey [mailto:tmk@dinosauricon.com] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 6:17 PM To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- Subject: RE: interesting style of definition On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Bryant, Harold MAH wrote: > Issues concerning the potential ambiguity of the meaning of the terms > "stemming" and "ancestor" can be avoided by the following wording: > > "The least inclusive clade that includes A and all extant organisms = that are > more closely related to A than to B." Problem here is that there are different concepts of "relatedness". Say = we have this situation: -+-A `-+-B `------------------------------------------------C Where A and B are relatively unmodified from the common ancestor, and C = is extremely derived. Is B more closely related to C or to A? It is morphologically and genetically more similar to A, although it shares = more recent ancestry with C. Personally, I like the wording "the first ancestor of A which is not = also an ancestor of B, plus all of that ancestor's descendants". Of course, = you then have to specify the nature of the ancestor, although IIRC = PhyloCode indicates it should be considered a species? ________________________________________________________________________= ____ _ T. MICHAEL KEESEY The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> BloodySteak <http://www.bloodysteak.com> personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> = <tmk@dinosauricon.com> Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com> AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ICQ <77314901> Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>