Message 2003-03-0002: Re: Note 9.4.1

Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:38:01 +0100

[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


  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!