Sadly, I missed the original post, but the responses indicate that it must
have been interesting.
However, we have:
In article <9012131405.AA01263 at evolution.genetics.washington.edu>
joe at GENETICS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Joe Felsenstein) writes:
> The remainder of the posting is about concepts of speciation. I suggest
> that it be reposted to the population-biology group which is where
> that belongs, as it has nothing specific to do with molecular evolution.
In article <90348.121339JAHAYES at MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES at MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh
Hayes) writes:
> (I also wonder where this thread belongs; there is no molecular
> biology involved thus far, but there is no [or at least we don't
> receive] bionet.philosophy.evolution. Followups to wherever you
> think appropriate.)
Given the paucity of traffic on molbio.evolution (indeed, given the tiny
number of messages that appear on BIONET in general), we should try
to avoid sending interesting strings to their deaths in the hinterlands.
Just because it does not fit some anal-retentive's idea of how to divide
up the info-bio-sphere (e.g., MOLBIO.YET.ANOTHER.DISPENSABLE.GROUP)
does not mean that it isn't worth perusing by folks who like to read
about molecular evolution.
Alas, poor string, we hardly knew ye ....
Non-woof
Dept. Mol. Biol.
Mass. General Hospital
[Extremely offensive .sig available on request, or in response]
