[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

[Richard Pyle]

Yes, that's precisely the question!

 

Aloha,

Rich

 

P.S. For those who don't get the reference, Google "ultimate answer to
everything in the universe"

 

From: John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:00 AM
To: Richard Pyle
Cc: Richard Zander; Ashley Nicholas; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphological characters
-- UPGMA is not cladistics

 

Yeah, but what does 42 mean?

 

John Grehan

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:

> Hey, I think after years and years we are slowly, slowly converging on
> agreeing what the question is for all those answers in the literature.

Weird how all those answers end up being "42".

Aloha,
Rich


_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here