GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-10 > 1224091661


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What is a clade?
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:27:41 -0400
References: <mailman.23236.1224085040.30481.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><748503.10441.qm@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <748503.10441.qm@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Thank you for the correction. The 1911 definition is consistent with the
cladists' definition because it requires that the clade include *all*
descendants of one common ancestor (i.e., that the clade be holophyletic),
although it's not a complete definition of a "cladistic clade" because a
cladistic clade must be defined cladistically (by cladistic methods).
Henceforth, I will try to remember to say, "cladistic clade," instead of just
clade, to remove the ambiguity of a word with two different definitions.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Jim T
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] What is a clade?
>
> Cladists did not coin the word 'clade'. The word 'clade',
> derived from the Greek 'klados', was in use long before
> cladistics was invented. Here is the 1911 definition from
> Merriam-Webster: "a group of biological taxa (as species)
> that includes all descendants of one common ancestor". That
> was the only definition in 1911. Your assertion that you are
> using the word in its original meaning is wrong.
>
> Jim Turner
>
> From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
> >
> > Vince,
> >
> > As Richard demonstrated with his excerpt from the
> "Dictionary of Genetics,"
> > there are now two definitions of the word "clade." You are
> using definition 1.
> > I am using definition 2, which is the original definition
> of the word as coined
> > by cladists engaged in cladistics (ca. the 1960s). A
> technical word with a very
> > precise meaning now has what I would consider a vernacular
> meaning, but that's
> >just my opinion.
> <snip>
>
>

This thread: