In article <schwarze-020694182231 at fennel.bio.caltech.edu> schwarze at starbase1.caltech.edu (Erich Schwarz) writes:
>> (who actually finds Felsenstein's
> arguments in favor of statistical
> phylogenies way more convincing than
> "Hennig-style" single-tree analyses)
Well at least there's one of you. Not me.
B.T.W. We call it cladistics or phylogentic systematics, and I don't
know where you came up with the single-tree thing. Ever heard of
multiple equally parsimonious trees?
P.S. Sorry Joe, not meant to be a backhanded criticism. Fine work. I
just don't agree. :^)
Mark E. Siddall "I don't mind a parasite...
mes at vims.edu I object to a cut-rate one"
Virginia Inst. Marine Sci. - Rick
Gloucester Point, VA, 23062