[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?



In a message dated 2/26/02 0:06:53 AM EST, jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu 
writes:

<< In its simplest form, we identify a clade (a common ancestor and all of 
its descendants) by using a simple formula to point to the common ancestor. 
The most basic example is, "the most recent common ancestor of species A and 
species B and all of its descendants." This makes no statements regarding the 
"characters" (if such things exist) of the species included or excluded. May 
I suggest you go back and reread the early papers on phylogenetic taxonomy 
(see ref.s below)? >>

It sounds good, but I'm pretty sure that this way of defining clades makes it 
theoretically impossible to demonstrate that any taxa other than the anchor 
taxa are included in or excluded from a clade. You will need characters one 
way or another, so you might as well put them right into your definitions, 
not just your diagnoses.