In article <1991Jan31.155713.27154 at ns.network.com> beckfdp at pallas.network.com (D. Pat Beckfield) writes:
> As you're discussing semantics, it seems appropriate that I (a writer and
> BS in zoology) respond.
> discussion deleted...
> If they do carry out the same functions, but you're still concerned by
> evolutionary relations, you can call them "analogous" -- having the
> same function, but not necessarily the same origin.
>> D. Patrick Beckfield pat.beckfield at network.com
in the literature, two similar sequences are RARELY referred to as
"analogous"
--
owen white (owhite at nmsu.edu)
-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-*-=-=-*-=-
got my head on a pole (for better reception)
-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-*-=-=-*-=-
