[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 <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> 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).

-- 
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?