On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:28:12AM +1000, Syd Curtis wrote:
> "This comes not so much from a dearth of robust phylogenies (Christidis
> & Boles 1994) as from its effect in raising most present subspecies to the
> level of species, almost doubling the size of the fauna at species level.
> And all 'species' would have to be re-circumscribed according to new
> criteria. Administrative consequences, in government and the legislature a
> well as biology, would be daunting."
>
> But if our Australian society is ever to be really serious about conserving
> biodiversity, phylogenetic 'species' surely are what we must seek to
> conserve?
This paper by Zink argues that current subspecies may reflect poorly
evolutionary history and hence hinder conservation planning:
http://www.cbs.umn.edu/eeb/faculty/ZinkRobert/RoleofSubspecies.pdf
Depending on your definition of a phylogenetic species, Zink's points
also contradict S&M's view that most current subspecies would be raised
to the level of (phylogenetic) species . A doubling of the number
of species is still consistent with Zink's arguments.
Andrew
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
