Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:54:13 +0100

[Previous by date - Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names]

[Next by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]

[Previous by subject - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]

[Next by subject - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]

Date: **Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:54:13 +0100**

From: **[unknown]**

To: **mightyodinn@yahoo.com**

Cc: **phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, david.marjanovic@gmx.at**

Subject: **Re: Phylogenetic Notation**

> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:54:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com> >=20 > I'd like to emphasize that this ASCII-friendly version would only b= e > intended for casual Internet discussion, *not* the actual > definitions or in papers. This seems like a bad idea to me. There should be one and only one notation. And since Internet chat is a legitimate forum for phylogenetic discussion, that one true notation should be ASCII-only. Sorry -- I do see the appeal of using non-ASCII mathematical symbols, but the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. Using short words such as "not" is by some way the lesser of the two evils. (All IMHO, of course.) _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________= ___ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> http://www.miketaylor.org= .uk )_v__/\ "Who needs to worry about a 10^-15 chance of an MD5 collisio= n =09 when the chance of the programmer screwing up seems to be =09 about fifty-fifty?" -- Mark-Jason Dominus. -- Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio =09http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/

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