Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!agate!ucbvax!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!nmsu!opus!owhite From: owhite@nmsu.edu (smouldering dog) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Homology/similarity/identity: proper usage. Message-ID: Date: 1 Feb 91 15:43:17 GMT References: <3824@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1991Jan31.155713.27154@ns.network.com> Sender: news@NMSU.Edu Organization: Computing Research Lab Lines: 19 In-reply-to: beckfdp@pallas.network.com's message of 31 Jan 91 15:57:13 GMT In article <1991Jan31.155713.27154@ns.network.com> beckfdp@pallas.network.com (D. Pat Beckfield) writes: > As you're discussing semantics, it seems appropriate that I (a writer and > BS in zoology) respond. > discussion deleted... > If they do carry out the same functions, but you're still concerned by > evolutionary relations, you can call them "analogous" -- having the > same function, but not necessarily the same origin. > > D. Patrick Beckfield pat.beckfield@network.com in the literature, two similar sequences are RARELY referred to as "analogous" -- owen white (owhite@nmsu.edu) -=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-*-=-=-*-=- got my head on a pole (for better reception) -=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-=-*-=-*-=-=-*-=-