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

Re: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:06:23 +0200 (MEST)
References: <8b3c185c0510040712q774aa44fw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

> (It's ofen said that a clade or a node-based definition is more stable
> than a apomorphic or a content list based definition, it seems that it
> not actually true.)

This sounds like the early or perhaps middle 1990s... :-)

"Taxon-based definitions" have been universally abandoned because they 
simply aren't definitions.

How do you mean "stable"? Stability of content?

-- 
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner

References:
- Re: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy
  - From: Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Defining clades like a REAL man (Was: New PaleoBios pa
Next by Date: Re: Padian et al. 1999 (Was: New PaleoBios paper - diplodo
Previous by thread: Re: Padian et al. 1999 (Was: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy)
Next by thread: Re: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy
Indexes: