New paper: Etheostoma blennioides phylogeny
#1 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 14 October 2008 - 04:30 PM
#2 Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:31 PM
#3 Guest_TomNear_*
Posted 14 October 2008 - 08:20 PM
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.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?
#4 Guest_ashtonmj_*
Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:59 AM
#5 Guest_Newt_*
Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:03 AM
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?
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users