mobile - desktop |
Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
|
[ Login ] [ User Prefs ]
[ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Taxonomy Discussion ] [ Reply To This Message ] [ Register to Post ] |
Posted by: emoneill at Sun Oct 5 19:00:36 2008 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by emoneill ] After re-reading this thread it is clear to me that once again we have a disagreement that stems in semantics. I think Cking and I agree on the definitions of para and polyphyly, but he thinks paraphyly is a form of monophyly, where I equate the terms holophyly and monophyly. While I believe my use of these terms has historical precedence and is more widely accepted in the literature, I'd rather not argue semantics. If Cking were smarter he might have caught this before I did, but it looks like he instead resorted to claiming my example had "garbage" for data and never really took the time to examine the challenge. It is this type of dogma that prevents any progress from being made in these discussions. [ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]
| ||
>> Next topic: Atractaspis - Mark_in_SE_Wisc, Tue Sep 16 23:39:29 2008 << Previous topic: The genus Lampropeltis - CKing, Wed Jun 11 01:59:07 2008 |
AprilFirstBioEngineering | GunHobbyist.com | GunShowGuide.com | GunShows.mobi | GunBusinessGuide.com | club kingsnake | live stage magazine
|