mes at zoo.toronto.edu
Wed Jun 22 13:13:37 EST 1994
Continuing the thread of trying to bring a contemporary perspective of
the usage of phylogenetic terminology to the feild of systematic
protistology... I mentioned that I would post the relevant references
for those interested in the death-of-holophyly.
Though this post is long, I think you will find relevant responses to
my detractors and encourage a good thorough read.
The nays can be found in:
Farris, J.S. 1974 Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly.
Syst. Zool. 23: 548-554.
Farris, J. S. 1990. Haekel, History and Hull. Syst. Zool. 39: 81-88.
Colless, D.H. 1972. A note on Ashlock's definition of "monophyly".
Syst. Zool. 21: 126-128.
Nelson, G. 1973. Monophyly again? A reply to P.D. Ashlock. Syst. Zool.
These are but a few of the references.
NOTE: Except for one of Farris' papers above which was responding to
errors in Hull's book, the issue has been dead, and gone for
Again, I ask, how long will my fellow systematic protoozologists
remain outside of the loop?
As a further example, besides myself, there was but one protozoologist
at the joint SSB/SSE/SMBE meeting last week.
Excerpts and commontary re Ashlock and the emptiness of "holophyly" follow:
More information about the Protista