Yeah, right. I have however the experience that once a spilt is recognised,
the amount of arguments for it grow and grows. Sometimes it doesn't and
that's because the split probably isn't real. Now that's the nice thing
about these cladistics. These are theories. You can test them and if you
feel Kluge uses irrelevant characters, you can try to refute his cladistics
with relevant characters. Like, when you managed to find a very elaborate
structure in both the Sphaerodactylids and the Eublepharids, which could
only point to a comon ancestry.. Cladistic-theory predicts that if you would
study another character (some protein of part of DNA for instance, or a
curious division of a pulmonary vein) the character states would be found to
be spilt along the same branches as the proposed tree.
Peter Mudde
Hoofdredactie 'onder het Palmblad'
see : www.palmblad.com
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Tony Gamble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: Peter Mudde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: donderdag 25 januari 2001 7:01
Onderwerp: Re: Gekkotaic taxonomy was [Gecko] pictus inbreeding
>Hello Peter,
>Very well put. As you probably know, though, the devils in the
>details (and it seems that the devil teaches at the University of
>Michigan).
>--
>Best regards,
> Tony mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>######################################################################
> THE GLOBAL GECKO ASSOCIATION LISTSERV
> WebSite: http://www.gekkota.com
> The GGA takes no responsibility for the contents of these postings.
>######################################################################
>
