[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: correct this "definition"
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:36 PM, don ohmes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Is there any point in naming the "final common
> ancestor" in the more important clades? Perhaps this
> might be useful as teaching tool; the name-form could
> be chosen so as to make it obvious that "this
> 'organism' is one of the hypothetical founders". The
> name could carry other information, such as (e.g.)
> best-guess age, taxonomic relationship to the
> "Universal Ancestor" or clade status relative to
> living descendants.
> Heh. If this idea is found to be useful, I vote for
> something memorable and easy to type; like "Bob" or...
It's useful enough that at least two have been informally named: LUCA
(the Last Universal Common Ancestor of extant life) and Urbilateria
(the last common ancestor of all bilaterian animals).
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?