Re: correct this "definition"

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

--- Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:36 PM, don ohmes
> <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is there any point in naming the "final common
> >  ancestor" in the more important clades? Perhaps
> this
> >  might be useful as teaching tool; the name-form
> could
> >  be chosen so as to make it obvious that "this
> >  'organism' is one of the hypothetical founders".
> The
> >  name could carry other information, such as
> (e.g.)
> >  best-guess age, taxonomic relationship to the
> >  "Universal Ancestor" or clade status relative to
> >  living descendants.
> >
> >  Heh. If this idea is found to be useful, I vote
> for
> >  something memorable and easy to type; like "Bob"
> or...
> 
> It's useful enough that at least two have been
> informally named: LUCA
> (the Last Universal Common Ancestor of extant life)

LUCA is good. Easily remembered and obviously does not
refer to an actual fossil.

> and Urbilateria

Dammit man, I said "easy to type". }:D

> (the last common ancestor of all bilaterian
> animals).
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Johansson
> 
> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like
> everybody else?
>