Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!ns!pallas!beckfdp From: beckfdp@pallas.network.com (D. Pat Beckfield) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution Subject: Re: Homology/similarity/identity: proper usage. Summary: Defense of my professional opinion Message-ID: <1991Feb1.215132.9189@ns.network.com> Date: 1 Feb 91 21:51:32 GMT References: <3824@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1991Jan31.155713.27154@ns.network.com> Sender: news@ns.network.com Organization: Network Systems Corporation Lines: 33 Nntp-Posting-Host: pallas In article owhite@nmsu.edu (smouldering dog) writes: >In article <1991Jan31.155713.27154@ns.network.com> beckfdp@pallas.network.com (D. Pat Beckfield) writes: >> 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) > I must point out that this is a failing of the authors of the literature, not the English language. If the author is not confident enough of the origins of the material, but is confident that it is homomorphic with and carries out the same functions as other material, then the correct word in the English language is "analogous". The word is ideally suited to the situation as described. I can state this emphatically as a professional technical writer, condescension not withstanding. Respectfully, D.P.B. -- D. Patrick Beckfield pat.beckfield@network.com 7600 Boone Ave N (612) 424-4888 Network Systems Corporation Minneapolis, MN 55428-1099