neospecies

Gurcharan singhg at SATYAM.NET.IN
Sat Nov 20 15:08:21 CST 2004


What is being discussed is nothing new to biology, botany in particular.
Comparatively recent species (what is being highlighted as neospecies) are a
common feature in apomictic genera such as Taraxacum, Euphrasia, Alchemilla
to name a few. Amphiploids of recent origin are aslso known in Tragopogon
and Senecio. Such species, largely because they did not have time to move
out of the parent area have long been known as 'neoendemics' where the term
is better suited to differentiate from paleoendemics.
Gurcharan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: neospecies


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Jensen
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: neospecies
>
>
> The article is an interesting one.  What I find odd is that the word
> "Neospecies" is used in the title, but appears nowhere in the text of the
> paper.  Rather, in the text, the expression "incipient species" is used to
> refer
> to the taxon in question.  So, what is a neospecies?
>
> Dick
> ***********
>
> In the paper I am editing, I passed along the comments I received to the
> authors with the bottom line that that term is being replace in the paper
> due to its lack of definition.  It looks to be an up and coming term that
> needs to be defined before it ends up being found all over the place as a
> new catchy terminology.  Proto-species seemed to me to be a close
rephrasing
> of what neospecies meant contextually in the submitted paper.  It came out
> of an electrophorensic study in application to an entity that apparently
is
> considered to have achieved the state of species by _that_ data.  BUT, it
> still could be taken as a hybrid swarm type of population in my view.
> Thus, the need for something more taxonomically solid in delineating
exactly
> what the author's _readers_ should consider this to be.  Personally,
> "neospecies" smacks of a "ranking" of taxa outside the ICZN Code and more
in
> line with PhyloCode - it is, so it is recognized as a thingy.   Neospecies
> would be paraphyletic :-) for sure and probably polyphyletic due to their
> chemical or genetic affinity with multiple established species.  No?
>
> Ron Gatrelle




More information about the Taxacom mailing list