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

Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
From: Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:46:39 -0400
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
In-reply-to: <010001c4532a$b71cdb30$0300a8c0@IPC>
References: <BCF5C84F.E9E%ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz> <010001c4532a$b71cdb30$0300a8c0@IPC>
Reply-to: npharris@umich.edu
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

Quoting David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:

> OK. Ecologists tend not to be systematists, though, and molecular biologists
> have a really simple taxonomy:
>
> Bacteria
>         *E. coli*
>         Not *E. coli*
> Archaea
>         Yes!
> Eukaryota
>         *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*
>         Mammalia

Hey, that's not fair!

You left out *Arabidopsis thaliana*.

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

References:
- Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
  - From: Christopher Taylor <ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz>
- Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
Next by Date: art show & SVP
Previous by thread: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
Next by thread: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
Indexes: