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

Re: node fossil

To: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: node fossil
From: Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:18:29 +0200
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Cc: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
In-reply-to: <1f4a892d0910142134p7db4e1freff1bd3258929323@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58L0.0910142110001.30877@zipcon.net> <1f4a892d0910142134p7db4e1freff1bd3258929323@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: j.falconnet@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

T. Michael Keesey a Ãcrit :

But *all* taxa are nodes. (And note that nodes can be terminal.)

Actually, all taxa are not nodes, but all nodes are taxa. Prettydifferent. Paraphyletic and polyphyletic taxa are indeed... taxa, but donot correspond to nodes by definition. See the paper on *Darwinopterus*:the taxon Ramphorhynchoidea is indicated in the cladistic analysis andmentioned several times in the text, but this taxon is still paraphyletic.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: node fossil
  - From: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>

References:
- node fossil
  - From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker@zipcon.net>
- Re: node fossil
  - From: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Novas, Age of Dinos in S.A., pg 203 figure D
Next by Date: That "? letter
Previous by thread: Re: node fossil
Next by thread: Re: node fossil
Indexes: