Message 2003-03-0003: Re: Note 9.4.1

Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:53:21 +0100 (MET)

[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 <>
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 +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!


Feedback to <> is welcome!