Message 2002-02-0017: RE: interesting style of definition

Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:09:10 -0600

[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>

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!