 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Langaha on November 26, 2002 at 07:03:30:
In Reply to: more importantly.... posted by vvvddd on November 25, 2002 at 17:42:16:
Van,
According to F. Burbrink subspecies do not exist. Indeed, in a wide-ranging species there will be allopatric populations or simply contiguous populations that show degrees of morphological distinction. And DNA sometimes will correlate well with these populations. One must understand though, and apparently Frank does not, a clade on a given tree does NOT necessarily indicate a distinct species. He identified population structure in his last paper, nothing more! Subspecies?..they cannot exist under the Evolutionary Species Concept definition.
Although I will wait until I read this guttata paper, I have no reason to believe that it will be any different from the last one. A great crop of young biologists we have huh?! Gel Jocks!
