mes at zoo.toronto.edu
Tue Sep 12 08:45:20 EST 1995
In article <42v658$b4m at mserv1.dl.ac.uk> p.eigner at magnet.at writes:
>SUMMARY of recent taxonomic changes within the Hypotrichida (Ciliophora),
>new genera and species, new combinations, diagnoses, terms, definitions and
>phylogenetic relationships, based on detailed descriptions of divisional
>morphogeneses, as published in three papers (A-C).
This is an awful lot of bandwidth for apparent self-aggrandisement.
Perhaps you should in future just create a web-page and point people to
it who might be interested.
(Or go whole hog the other direction and post your whole CV here). :-)
PS: You wrote "phylogenetic relationships". I assert that with no
phylogenetic tree you have diddly to say about phylogenetic
relationships!!! Divisional morphogenesis is but one character.
By basing phylogenetic speculation on this alone you in effect say that
all other evolutionary change is uninteresting? And that this
particular characteristic is infallible? Or that morphogeneis
and thus phylogeny can be reduced to eigen-values and other shape-
based mathematical gymnastics? Phylogeny is not an abstraction.
There... spleen vented.
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
More information about the Protista