Message 2003-02-0029: Re: Note 9.4.1

Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:58:11 -0500

[Previous by date - Art. 20]
[Next by date - RE: Note 9.4.1]
[Previous by subject - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by subject - Re: Note 9.4.1]

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:58:11 -0500
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Note 9.4.1

Yes!  The goal is not simplicity but allowing people to name the clades that
they want to name.  And even if we did only have one type of definition,
many people would prefer the one type to be node- or stem-based rather than

>>>  "peter a. cejchan" <> - 2/25/03 8:34 AM >>>
Do we really need node- and stem-based definitions? Perhaps molecular
phylogenies (seem to) force us to use these. However, adhering solely to
apomorphy-based definitions would simplify Art. 13. Are there other cases
for node- and stem-based d's than are the distance-based phylogenies? Just
my opinion, as usually...



Feedback to <> is welcome!