[Taxacom] Question about a malacological rhetorical question
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Jan 22 16:40:00 CST 2015
There is a *big* difference between a species being 'deliminated [delimited] *solely* by evidence of reproductive barriers', and such barriers being used to confirm delimitation based on morphology and/or genetics. In fact, surely the former doesn't actually make sense? How could there be reproductive barriers if there was complete identity in morphology and/or genetics? Even if there were supposed behavioural differences (e.g. diural vs. nocturnal), this could just be interpreted as different behaviours of one species, with the diurnal ones never meeting up to reproduce with the nocturnal ones. Otherwise, you could claim that day shift workers and night shift workers are different species!!
On Fri, 23/1/15, Adam.N.Jenkins13 at gmail.com <adam.n.jenkins13 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: [Taxacom] Question about a malacological rhetorical question
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 23 January, 2015, 11:30 AM
One for all the marine malacologists out there.
In /Taxonomic Problems of the Genus Olivia/ by Bernard
Tursch the author
asks a rhetorical question regarding delimination of species
molluscs "has any species of marine mollusc ever been
defined by direct
proof of reproductive barriers?" In the context of the paper
is emphasisng the use of morphospecies as an indirect
approach to the
biological species concept. It got me wondering in the 7
years since the
publication of this paper has there been any species of
deliminated solely by evidence of reproductive barriers? Any
reading would be greatly appreciated.
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus protection is active.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom