RE: New 'frog-amander' (today's Nature)

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

Anthony Docimo writes:
 > >> In fact, if the authors are right, almost everyone's blood will
 > >> flow, because almost all phylogenetic analyses have found a
 > >> monophyletic Lissamphibia.
 > > 
 > > The authors found a monophyletic Lissamphibia, it was just a lot more 
 > > inclusive...
 > 
 >  wouldn't it *have to be*, in order to be monophyletic?
 > 
 > (or am I missing/misunderstanding something?)

No, you're understanding perfectly.  If Lissamphibia has a
phylogenetic definition as a clade, then, yes, it is a clade wherever
the anchor taxa happen to fall out on the phylogeny.  So, as Scott
says, they did find a monophyletic Lissamphibia (by definition), and
it was a lot more inclusive.

Except, as David pointed out, a self-destructing definition such as
the one that's been submitted to the mythical Phylocode companion
volume simply disappears in a puff of logic under these circumstances.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike@indexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "``Cyber-'' means ``I do not know what I am talking about''" --
         Ted Nelson.