> To me
>subspecies is very helpful although I hate the name. It
>indicates which organisms are very closely related, such that
>speciation may well still be in the happening. For instance
>isnt it better to recognise that two variants are subspecies,
>than to call them species which sees the dame degree of
>separation as two well split members of the same genera and
>hence is misleading. To me if there are no subspecies then
>there is no such phenomenon as speciation. Am I right or am I
>ranting? :-)
Mark
Take a look at:
Schodde, R. & Mason, I.J. (1999). "The Directory of Australian Birds:
Passerines." (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood).
for a discussion of the ultrataxon concept of identifying subspecific
units. Phylogenetic taxonomy doesn't necessarily eliminate the
subspecific unit! ... and a pure phylogentic species concept is unlikely
to be adopted nationally at least in the near future - "hybrid" species
concepts abound!!!
I understand the upcoming new Australian checklist WILL include
subspecies/ultrataxa for the first time. Stay tuned.
L.
=================================
Lawrie Conole
Senior Ecologist
Ecology Australia Pty. Ltd.
Flora and Fauna Consultants
88B Station Street
FAIRFIELD VIC 3078 Australia
E-mail:
Internet: http://www.ecologyaustralia.com.au/
Ph: (03) 9489 4191; Mob: (0419) 588 993
Fax: (03) 9481 7679
ABN 83 006 757 142
NOTE: This message may contain privileged and/or confidential
information intended for addressees only. Please do not copy or forward
without permission.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
