Message 2002-02-0030: Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)

Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:35:44 -0500 (EST)

[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 14:35:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>
Cc: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:

> This is no different than defining *any* other phylogenetic taxon: you
> are always potentially incorrect about what is or is not included.

I guess what bugs me is that in this case content could change based on
something OTHER than a new understanding of topology. (Although I suppose
the same could hold true for apomorphy-based definitions....)

_____________________________________________________________________________
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!