Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

New paper: Etheostoma blennioides phylogeny

Started by Guest_TomNear_* , Oct 14 2008 04:30 PM

Reply to this topic

4 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_TomNear_*

Guests

Posted 14 October 2008 - 04:30 PM

Here is a paper recently published that is an alternative phylogenetic analysis of Etheostoma blennioides, the other being the Piller et al 2008 paper I posted a few months ago. However, comparing this to Piller et al. 2008 can probably lead to an interesting discussion. I have some views on the E. blennioides phylogenies, but I would like to see if others would like to start the discussion.

Attached Files

Haponski_Stepien2008.pdf 901.79KB 73 downloads

#2 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:31 PM

What's a guy got to do to get at least one (or more) Potomac represntative? Am I reading a few of these things correctly too? The Cuyahoga/Allegheny/Ganargua and Susq have monotypic (shared, identical, similar?) cyt b haplotypes? They are also not significantly divergent at the population level?

#3 Guest_TomNear_*

Guests

Posted 14 October 2008 - 08:20 PM

What's a guy got to do to get at least one (or more) Potomac represntative? Am I reading a few of these things correctly too? The Cuyahoga/Allegheny/Ganargua and Susq have monotypic (shared, identical, similar?) cyt b haplotypes? They are also not significantly divergent at the population level?

Matt, If you can get you hands on about 10 specimens, we can work them up for these genes. We have plenty from the Susquehanna. May make a nice little paper to determine if these Atlantic Slope populations are distinct.

#4 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guests

Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:59 AM

A, I could have kept about 500 last week from the Monocacy. I'll see what's been kept throughout the year but I don't think it's enough. if it comes around to takign this long, we have EPA sampling next summer at 6 places that should yield enough greensides.

#5 Guest_Newt_*

Guests

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:03 AM

I don't know enough about the methodologies involved to critique most of this, but I thought the conclusions expressed in the last paragraph were peculiar:

Etheostoma blennioides pholidotum and E. b. newmanii are invalid taxa as they are polyphyletic,
and do not warrant further recognition.

Would this not simply result in those names being restricted to the clades from which the types were drawn, and new names coined for the other clades identified by this study? Dropping the names would make more sense if the authors chose to recognize no subspecies at all, but they state that the nominate race is valid, which presumably leaves all the other clades as an undifferentiated lump of "E. blennioides that are not E. b. blennioides". Am I missing something?