Re: Sibley and Ahlquist (long)

Subject: Re: Sibley and Ahlquist (long)
From: John Penhallurick <>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 11:05:20 +1000 (EST)
I agree with Simon that most people are used to a list based on our best 
knowledge of phylogeny, and that they would give thumbs down to an 
alphabetical list.  I can remember how confusing I found Cayley's 
habitat-based sequence.

I also agree that there is still a lot of work to be done.  One universal 
problem with lists is that they force into two dimensions a tree which is 
necessarily multidimensional.

I personally think that Sibley & Monroe is the best to date and prefer to 
use that.  Don't forget that S & M supported the traditional 
classification 80%.

John Penhallurick

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU