"(morpho)" species?

Peter Rauch anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU
Wed Jan 6 13:30:54 CST 1999

[was] Re: semi-paraphyletic taxa: a new paradigm?

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Doug Yanega wrote:
> ...; if you want to say anything
> fundamental about diversity, you really shouldn't be looking any higher
> than (morpho)species.

Doug, I don't understand the parenthetical "(morpho)" in your comment
above. In particular, why should (bio)diversity studies be limited to
_morpho_ species? (I am not asking about your concern with diversity
studies that use "higher" level categories as the basis for comparisons
--I think I understand your point of view on that issue. I'm asking
whether you believe that there are no other _functional_ (or
biological/evolutionary) "low-level" categories than _morpho_ species
which can form the basis of useful biodiversity studies?

If not, I guess it would help, me at least, to know what your
morpho-species encompasses (in the overall scheme of functional
biological/evolutionary units (plants, animals, etc.) which make up a
"community" [I use the term loosely/broadly here] of more or less
interacting organisms, so I can better appreciate the morpho-species
(exclusive?) relationship to the notion of biodiversity.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list