[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: correct this "definition"
--- Andreas Johansson <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
> > might be useful as teaching tool; the name-form
> > be chosen so as to make it obvious that "this
> > 'organism' is one of the hypothetical founders".
> > name could carry other information, such as
> > 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
> > something memorable and easy to type; like "Bob"
> It's useful enough that at least two have been
> informally named: LUCA
> (the Last Universal Common Ancestor of extant life)
LUCA is good. Easily remembered and obviously does not
refer to an actual fossil.
> and Urbilateria
Dammit man, I said "easy to type". }:D
> (the last common ancestor of all bilaterian
> Andreas Johansson
> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like
> everybody else?