[Taxacom] Invisible evolution

[Richard Zander]

No, no. This was irony, I'm sure. Persons have misinterpreted some stuff
I have written when I thought surely no one would think I actually mean
this.

******************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
For FedEx and UPS use:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
******************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Laurent Raty
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:04 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Invisible evolution
> > The ancestral species MUST go extinct
> > lest our a priori decision that paraphyly is unacceptable be
> > compromised.
> 
> Then what about the assumption that *any one* of the descendent
> populations
> MUST be a "different species" from the ancestral population because
they
> are
> different now ?
> This is *also* based on a priori assumptions - that species boundaries
> MUST
> be meaningful across time, and that "being the same species" MUST be
> stricty
> transitive.
> 
> Laurent -
> --
> Laurent Raty
> l.raty at skynet.be
> Brussels, Belgium
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom