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

Re:

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re:
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:18:56 +0200
References: <BAY128-F255780AAAF0B30FE72E70BEBBE0@phx.gbl> <8b9d0ef50709161210k10a967eah8dd31a72695d24f4@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature

The cladistics article is quite bad. It mixes cladistics, the widely used principle that only clades should be named, and phylogenetic nomenclature without ever mentioning that these are three different things.

The phylogenetic nomenclature article, however, is absolutely excellent. I know that. Trust me. ;-]

References:
- [no subject]
  - From: Tobi Hautekiet <darth_tobi@hotmail.com>
- Re:
  - From: Nick <nick.gardner@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re:
Next by Date: Re:
Previous by thread: Re:
Next by thread: Re:
Indexes: