[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Keesey on a mathematical approach to defining clade names -- or -- Whatever Happened To Baby New Papers?
On 9/26/07, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Fine for node-based clades, not so hot for branch- or apomorphy-based,
> nor for the more complex definition types encompassed by Mike's
A branch definition would not be difficult: we have just to *divide*
by the sister-group clade-number.
Other definitions could eventually be assigned by a graph operation.