tdib at UMICH.EDU
Wed Mar 5 10:39:07 CST 1997
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:12:14 -0500, Mark Garland wrote:
(Tom DiBenedetto) writes:
> past processes are simply not a relevant consideration.
>Aren't you trying to reconstruct phylogeny here?? Or did I miss something?
Sorry for the ambiguity,,I was referring to the practice of making
generalizations about certain classes of inferred evolutionary
changes, and using those generalizations to influence the decisions
made in discovering the phylogeny of different groups. I realize that
my phrasing could be interpreted to mean something rather absurd;
that the actual processes which did occur in the group are not
relevant to the patterns which have resulted. Thas not what I meant.
More information about the Taxacom