[Taxacom] Predatory Open Access Publishers
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Mon Sep 17 13:11:12 CDT 2012
Oh, the subject line is not so far off-topic.
If "Phylogenetics cannot estimate monophyly," is right, then what do you
call people to say it does so, get millions of dollars from cronies at
NSF, march four abreast down the avenue of honor with rose petals tossed
at their feet by adoring students, trumpets praising how simple
evolutionary analysis is now that we have computers and axioms to run
them on, while in the distance totters a tower of tergiversation labeled
Tree of Life?
Well, can a nested set of taxa or exemplars alone reveal monophyly? What
about ((((A,B)C)D)E)? What do you need to know in addition to the
cladogram to infer monophyly?
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:23 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Predatory Open Access Publishers
On 2012-09-16 11:45 AM, Richard Zander wrote:
> Phylogenetics cannot estimate monophyly. Did I say that? I'll make a
> macro for it.
I'm amused that no one has changed the subject line.
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
(1) by visiting 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