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

Re: VERY Stupid question, but I dont know the answer...

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 NJPharris@aol.com wrote:

> Also, if clades are going to be defined on anchors rather than apomorphies,
> eponymous clade names are definitely the way to go.

Apomorphy-based clades still have a species specifier (the species which
the ancestor must share the apomorphy with), so they can be eponymous as
well.

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>