[Previous by date - Re: interesting style of definition]
[Next by date - Re: interesting style of definition]
[Previous by subject - RE: interesting style of definition]
[Next by subject - RE: interesting style of definition]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:51:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: interesting style of definition
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Bryant, Harold MAH wrote:
> I don't think that the draft PhyloCode includes a definition of "ancestor."
Not in the glossary, anyway. Nor "related" nor "crown clade".
Seems to me an example of a stem-modified crown clade would be a good
idea, too, as well as other acceptable definitions that are more complex
than the basic node-, stem-, and apomorphy-based ones.
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
BloodySteak <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>