Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU!wrp
From: wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson)
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution
Subject: Re: Homology/similarity/identity: proper usage.
Summary: use similarity and identity
Message-ID: <1991Jan31.131355.19881@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 91 13:13:55 GMT
References: <3824@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 10


	I would feel very uncomfortable calling some cloned inserts
from an insect "homologous" to mammalian genes.  I would say that they
were "X - Y% identical", or that they were "very similar."  The point
you want to make, of course, is that you now know the sequence of the
insect homologues of some mammalian genes, but it is the insect "genes"
that are homologous. I would put the cloned inserts into a different
category.

Bill Pearson