 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Langaha on October 17, 2002 at 09:35:53:
In Reply to: Re: Taxonomy is a matter of evidence...most of the time posted by vvvddd on October 16, 2002 at 20:42:23:
:I just looked over that paper you put on one of your posts concerning the use of molecular and morphological cues in taxonomy. It makes more sense now that mtDNA cues can't really distinguish between adjacent population. How do you determine if they are reproductively isolated or not, especially if they are very similar groups (ie 'subspecies' of ratsnake)? I guess some morphological cues might help, but what about behavior or niche colonization?
This Elaphe obsoleta revision has led to a lot of controversy and no one I know has accepted it. How can one justify sinking subspecies and elevating some to species based on a single slowly-evolving mtDNA gene? Population structure certainly does not necessarily indicate a distinct species, and thier data proved that their "species boundaries" failed to hold up (i.e. Apalachicola River). A total misuse of the ESC as well as mtDNA! And we thought subspecies have been used inappropriately.
