[Previous by date - Re: Note 9.4.1]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Animal 'bar codes' to take over from Latin names]
[Previous by subject - Re: Note 9.4.1]
[Next by subject - Re: Now online: Critique of Benton's (2000) "critique" of th=]
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:53:21 +0100 (MET)
From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Note 9.4.1
> > We wouldn't be able to tell if they are dinosaurs or not, Er, sorry: if we would adopt this particular apomorphy-based definition. > ...then, they would be "pretty certain" dinosaurs, as you still suppose > they once _did_possess_ the mentioned apomorphies, didn't you? I didn't. No hands are known for any of these, the outgroup to all of them (crocodiles + many others) don't have asymmetric hands, so we don't know, and won't before we find a hand. > BTW, do you mind driving popular science book authors crazy ;-) ? Heheh. Actually not. B-) But I wouldn't like the situation myself. > > Why would distance-based (isn't that phenetics?) phylogenies promote > > nodes & stems? > > they give you trees only, not mapped apomorphies... or am I wrong? Ah, they promote them passively by not allowing apomorphy-based definitions... don't know if you are right :-) -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!