Re: Phylogeny and Distance

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

George,
    In addition to what I just posted about the Darwin quote, I would also 
encourage anyone to read anything written by Peter Ashlock on the subject of 
phyletic trees and cladistic analysis.
    His methodology (of incorporating morphological distance, as well as 
branching order) is practiced by many systematists-----particularly in 
botany and entomology.  The systematics textbook by Mayr and Ashlock 
(Principles of Systematic Zoology, 1991) is a good place to start for anyone 
wanting to know more about Ashlock's views.
               ------Ken
********************************************************
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Phylogeny and Distance
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:55:22 EST
>
> In a message dated 1/10/01 3:05:51 AM EST, kinman@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << ****What is not being recognized here is that "relationship" is not the
>  same thing as "relatedness", and therefore neither are the degrees of
>  relationship and relatedness.   Siblings may share a common relationship,
>  but the number of genes they share in common can vary from 100% (in
>  identitical twins) to extremely low percentages in rare instances (the
>  disparity in relatedness can be enormous even among the closest of
>  relatives). >>
>
> You are stretching the analogy of a phyletic tree as a family tree too far.
> Phyletic trees are not based on morphological distance, only on branch
> topology. There is no analogue to "relatedness" as you describe in a 
> phyletic
> tree.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com