BUT the reason FOR THE dob IS THAT he himself ONLY THOUGHT of phylogeny strictly as a botanical metaphor for a specific idea of genetics. What is available today is much wider if one notices that thamnograms and dendograms ARE different.
If rates of evolution DO vary then different processes are possible.
That is why I DREW the relations of a "track" to Wright's "isolation by distance" and chimera dendothamnogram in specific projective geometric areas here:
This is why it matters if the word "proximate" is related to space(main massings) or form-making allometrics (Gould's preference). If one tries to visualize the hybrid meso evolution the full confusion comes out of shape and into the creationist difference (not noticed within the second wall of evolutionary resistance of the difference of horizontal and vertical evolution eveloped in a difference of creation science and scientific creationism).
I would be interested to know the papers where the term is MORE than described. Is it used? I know that Lerner "named" it transitively but if it is used to describe something other than genetic homeostasis I would like to know. Is it? As far as I know because it has not really been any more than mentioned"", people like John Davison will continue to have a point about the position effect.
It seems to me that whatever it is that MESO EVOLUTION denotes, a contined failure to visualize this form of effect on cladistic topology construction can undermine any attempted ameloriation of thoughts that simply step among a difference of so said "macro" and "micro" regardless of how one wants to think about mass extinctions etc. Does the reference you know of obviate this reading??