65
edits
Changes
that's because it's not a very good question
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::Related and simlar are just different things. You might say that whales are similar to fish in a lot of ways but they aren't particularly closely related. Phylogentic methods (with a few exceptions) are about modelling the way things have changed within lineages to work backwards to recreate the most likely pattern of branching in a particular group in the light of the characters being studied. That's not the same thing as similarity. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::: You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, ''why'' to they think they are related? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::: You haven't actually answered the question: On what basis are they considered to be related? To put it more simply, ''why'' to they think they are related? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Because of the peer reviewed journal article that is cited in the text? Or the 20 others that could take that place?--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 17:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)