[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Tue Nov 13 14:49:24 CST 2012

Well, in Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the Question was actually discovered. The actual Question for which 42 was the answer. I forget, however, exactly what it was. I think seven times nine. 


Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal Evenhuis [mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:44 PM
To: Richard Pyle; Richard Zander; 'Ashley Nicholas'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

On 11/13/12 7:33 AM, "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> scribbled the following tidbit:

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".

Touché! :-)

This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list