tdib at UMICH.EDU
Wed May 12 23:30:41 CDT 1999
>The statement that
>Rosa's formulations do not lie at the core of most (any?) cladists
> view of their science I would have to request greater clarification.
>Since Rosa is clearly a cladist, his formulations were cladistics, so
>those who support cladistic modes of analysis (and I would have to
>include myself) have Rosa's theory at their core.
Being a cladist, I guess I am a bit sensitive to issues of homology
(i.e. direct lines of ancestry vs. convergences). As we would be prone
to say, the character state in taxon A is simply not the same thing as
the state in taxon B if they are not part of the same inheritance, even
if they are identical.
I realize that ideas disperse in a network of influences, and if it
were shown that Hennigs ideas were deriviative of Rosa's I would agree
with you. I realize that Croizat leveled such charges, but I have also
heard that he was prone to rather intemparate remarks, and that Hennig
explicitly denied the charge.
Would the Rosa fans be content with the title "prophet" rather than
Tom DiBenedetto tdib at umich.edu
Museum of Zoology http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tdib
University of Michigan 734-647-2192
More information about the Taxacom