[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Nov 13 12:11:38 CST 2012
Yes, that's precisely the question!
P.S. For those who don't get the reference, Google "ultimate answer to
everything in the universe"
From: John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:00 AM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: Richard Zander; Ashley Nicholas; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters
-- UPGMA is not cladistics
Yeah, but what does 42 mean?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Hey, I think after years and years we are slowly, slowly converging on
> agreeing what the question is for all those answers in the literature.
Weird how all those answers end up being "42".
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom