[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 13:51:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: interesting style of definition
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Bryant, Harold MAH wrote: > I don't think that the draft PhyloCode includes a definition of "ancestor." Not in the glossary, anyway. Nor "related" nor "crown clade". Seems to me an example of a stem-modified crown clade would be a good idea, too, as well as other acceptable definitions that are more complex than the basic node-, stem-, and apomorphy-based ones. _____________________________________________________________________________ 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>