[Previous by date - Re: interesting style of definition]
[Next by date - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]
[Previous by subject - RE: interesting style of definition]
[Next by subject - RE:PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:13:08 -0600
From: "Bryant, Harold MAH" <HBryant@mah.gov.sk.ca>
To: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>, "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: interesting style of definition
Mike Keesey wrote: "Okay, I understand the issue there -- I'm really just wondering if everyone uses the term "related" in the cladistic sense (regardless of whether they should)." At least within the context of phylogenetic definitions, the answer is, = or should be, yes. Harold --------------------------------------------------- Harold Bryant Royal Saskatchewan Museum 2340 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan=A0 S4P 3V7 Canada 306-787-2826 FAX 306-787-2645