[Previous by date - RE: Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: In case anyone was wondering]
[Previous by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:19:11 +0200
To: PML <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems
> Umm... both Wolsan and I have come up with ways to name BOTH > the crown and the total groups of all life without using apomorphie= s. Sorry, that's true. My thinking had come full circle; I had started w= ith your definition that starts with "the first ancestor of *Homo sapiens= *", then noticed that "ancestor" implies it's alive, then forgot that, th= en Mike came with a definition that mentioned an ancestor again, and... :-] > Wolsan's are arguably better. Well. "Most inclusive clade" doesn't mention an ancestor, but it stil= l implies one. The question "where does the clade start" doesn't go awa= y.