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" <>
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
> 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?



Feedback to <> is welcome!