Undue concern about morphospecies?

Peter Rauch anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU
Thu Jan 7 12:15:02 CST 1999

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Peter Rauch wrote:
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 99 12:01:41 PST
> From: Peter Rauch <anamaria at grinnell.Berkeley.EDU>
> To: anamaria at grinnell.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: L146810.html
> Lynx Version 2-4-2
> File that you are currently viewing
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Richard Jensen wrote:
> ...  For example, throughout its range in
> North America, the common red oak is a morphologically well-defined entity.
> However, I would not argue that populations of this taxon in New England
> belong to the same evolutionary species as do populations from western
> Kentucky.  This, of course, opens up the entire question of what a species
> is; ...

Below is reference to one more recent, familiar example of what I would
call the disinformation enterprise of those other diversity study/survey
"consumers", who are uncomfortable with the US Endangered Species Act,
while giving lip-service to having "science" to be the foundation of
"government"  policy-making.

The scientists would be imposed upon, as they already are, by the likes
of these disinformationists (think tanks, etc) to "prove" that the
morpho and other kinds of species are worthy of specific recognition and

Check out:
Linkname: Saving the imperiled
URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/archives/browserecent/01041999/archives/13540.shtml


More information about the Taxacom mailing list