[Previous by date - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]
[Next by date - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]
[Previous by subject - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]
[Next by subject - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:50:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>, phyloadvisors@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Michel Laurin wrote:
> Here, I suggest a minor change of phrasing if we wanted to adopt such
> definitions because the expression "all currently published and
> extant species sharing more recent ancestry..." might be ambiguous;
> some might think that it includes the species that are published
> (whether or not they are extant), as well as the species that are
> extant (without necessarily being published). Thus, it would be
> better to use the phrasing "all currently published extant species
> sharing more recent ancestry..."
Thanks for pointing out the amibiguity. Actually, what I really meant was
"all currently published and currently extant species", thus clarifying
what is meant by "extant" at the same time.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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>