Message 2004-10-0105: Re: Phylogenetic Notation

Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:07:19 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names]
[Previous by subject - Re: Phylogenetic Notation]
[Next by subject - Re: Pickett's charge]

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <>
Cc: Mike Taylor <>
Subject: Re: Phylogenetic Notation

--- Mike Taylor <> wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: "T. Michael Keesey" <>
> >=20
> > I'd like to emphasize that this ASCII-friendly version would only=
> > 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-onl=
> Sorry -- I do see the appeal of using non-ASCII mathematical symbol=
> but the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits.  Using short words
> such as "not" is by some way the lesser of the two evils.  (All IMH=
> of course.)

ASCII characters do not include italicized letters, but this does not=
 stop us
=66rom discussing clades and species, does it? Furthermore, I have in=
the shorthand outline in PhyloCode Note 9.4.1 into the latest version=
, so the
most commonly used expressions can still be discussed in ASCII withou=
t any
change from the original (apart from the use of italics). I'd also po=
int out
that, whatever the ASCII system would be, it would still be identical=
 to the
original system except for the depiction of certain symbols; not a di=
system, per se, but a different way of writing it.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>

Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!


Feedback to <> is welcome!