terms

Mark Siddall mes at zoo.toronto.edu
Wed Jun 22 13:13:37 EST 1994



Continuing the thread of trying to bring a contemporary perspective of
the usage of phylogenetic terminology to the feild of systematic
protistology...  I mentioned that I would post the relevant references
for those interested in the death-of-holophyly.

Though this post is long, I think you will find relevant responses to 
my detractors and encourage a good thorough read.


The nays can be found in:

Farris, J.S.  1974  Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly.
     Syst. Zool.  23: 548-554.
Farris, J. S.  1990.  Haekel, History and Hull.  Syst. Zool. 39: 81-88.

Colless, D.H.  1972.  A note on Ashlock's definition of "monophyly".
     Syst. Zool.  21: 126-128.

Nelson, G.  1973.  Monophyly again? A reply to P.D. Ashlock.  Syst. Zool.
      22: 310-312.


These are but a few of the references.

NOTE:  Except for one of Farris' papers above which was responding to 
       errors in Hull's book, the issue has been dead, and gone for
       20 years!!!!   
       Again, I ask, how long will my fellow systematic protoozologists
       remain outside of the loop?
       As a further example, besides myself, there was but one protozoologist
       at the joint SSB/SSE/SMBE meeting last week.

Excerpts and commontary re Ashlock and the emptiness of "holophyly" follow:





More information about the Protista mailing list