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

Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <577091.75738.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: tijawi@yahoo.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Sorry, it was Mickey M. who said this, not Mike K.  Sorry Mike!


> I agree in that case it would be useless as a
> specifier for that clade.  My point is that we need
> to determine if it is a member of that clade, and if it
> is, then I would advocate using it as an internal
> specifier.


So I'll emend my response to "Easier said than done, Mickey!"  :-)

References:
- Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
Next by Date: Re: Flight capablities of Archie & Confucius? Not so good...
Previous by thread: Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
Next by thread: Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
Indexes: