[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 14:25:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Mike Taylor wrote:
> For that reason, I agree with Mike Keesey that it's better to use
> explicit terms like "recent common ancestor" even if _we_ all
> understand simpler terms like "related" to mean the same thing.
Or at least define "related" in the PhyloCode glossary.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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>