[Previous by date - RE: Note 9.4.1]
[Next by date - Re: Note 9.4.1]
[Previous by subject - Re: Note 9.4.1]
[Next by subject - Re: Note 9.4.1]
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:38:01 +0100
From: "peter a. cejchan" <cej@gli.cas.cz>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Note 9.4.1
> brontosaurs and the giant brontosaurs", as a Disney comic put it.) We wouldn't be > able to tell if they are dinosaurs or not, driving a good proportion of popular > science book authors crazy, even though the phylogenetic positions of 3 of > them are pretty certain (at the moment). > ...then, they would be "pretty certain" dinosaurs, as you still suppose they once _did_possess_ the mentioned apomorphies, didn't you? BTW, do you mind driving popular science book authors crazy ;-) ? > Why would distance-based (isn't that phenetics?) phylogenies promote nodes & > stems? > they give you trees only, not mapped apomorphies... or am I wrong? ++pac http://www.gli.cas.cz/home/cejchan