 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by EJ on December 22, 2002 at 09:13:18:
In Reply to: Assumptions, definitions and generalizations posted by emoneill on December 09, 2002 at 20:16:06:
::As for the subspecies being outdated. You are listening to a select few
:On the contrary mi amigo I "listen to" (actually I mainly read) all the sides to the species concept debate from Mayr to Frost and back again. Your assumption that I am not listening to the other side is completely false. Actually I have rejected subspecies because I read the literature on all sides, not because my reading habits are one sided.
:On another note, what do you mean by distinct?
:You wrote:
:a. If you refuse to think that peninsular Florida Ratsnake's are not distinct from all other rat snakes with vey small integrade zones, well you are wrong.
:b. As far as a distinct evolutionary lineage, none of the obsoleta are isolated and all exchange gene flow from north to south and east to west.
:You are saying in (a) that they are distinct but in (b) that they are not. You obviously mean distinct in two different ways in these, can you explain?
::The problem with today's taxonomists/systematists is that an entire generation is being taught procedures that they do not fully comprehend.
:I am part of that generation and I do make a considerable effort to understand the methods I use as well as is possible as do many people I know. So your generalization "an entire generation" is simply not true.
:Your complaint is legitimate though, where it applies. It is relatively easy to analyze data these days with unversal mtDNA primers and programs like PAUP, anyone can do it. But I am not saying this is the case with Burbrink's work.
:Another thing to take into account is that many people on this forum don't know the first thing about molecular data, species concepts, or philosophy of science. These are all important to the issue at hand.
:Cheers
