newbie/ + what is a superspecies

[Ron Gatrelle]

Welcome Tiffany,
    What degree are you pursuing? If it is psychology this should be
interesting.
I have been trying to post something for the last hour - sometimes messages
get chopped or for some reason don't make it through. I hope you don't mind
me (trying to) attaching this message here to this reply. A leps-l parasite
post I guess is what you would call this. Or a hitch hiker post. Welcome
again.
Ron Gatrelle, Charleston , SC, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: <tiffany_pratt at my-deja.com>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:21 AM
Subject: newbie


> Just subscribed..I had to subscribe to a news-group for graduate
> school.  I was very lucky to find a group with my favorite hobby...
> lucky me.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts, ideas, and useful
> information
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>From Ron.
1) The use of the term "superspecies" as found in the Code, was mentioned
by Guy Van de Poel not me. Guy quoted Article 6:2 which is a subsection of
Article 6 which deals with interpolated names (that is, names in brackets).
Interpolate simply means to insert - here, inserted non-trinomial terms.

2) The Code's articles do not "use" or employ the term superspecies (that I
have noticed). The Code is contains formal articles which are the "laws" if
you will. There are recommendations, which are strong suggestions. And then
there are examples of these recommendations. The term superspecies as
quoted by Guy was from an example to illustrate a recommendation.

3) The 2000 code in no way established the term superspecies as a "category
or as "another level of classification".

4) The new Code continues to only recognized species and subspecies as the
only valid ranks below genus. See the Code's glossary.

5) Dale answers very well the difference between the informal descriptive
term superspecies and the term subgenus. However, in some cases the term
superspecies can be used as a poor synonym for subgenus. In which case I
see no need to substitute a perfectly good term, subgenus, with an inferior
one.

6) Here is an example where superspecies might be used.  When I elevated
Neonympha helicta to species status I described the Miami area population
as new subspecies dadeensis. In that paper I stated that is was possible
that the Miami helicta population (dadeensis) might not have evolved past a
subspecies of N. areolata in south Florida. While the northern populations
of helicta (helicta helicta - NC to GA to MS, and helicta septentrionalis -
NJ) had evolved to species status with sympatric/allopatric areolata. IF
this were in fact the case I could see calling areolata/helicta a
superspecies. Then again why? The terms species and subspecies already
delineate these taxa well enough. And the use of superspecies would be
incorrect in the case of septentrionalis and areolata in particular. If it
isn't broke don't fix it.

7) While I'm at it, the new Code states that it no longer recognizes the
term genotype. See glossary. I assume this is because the field of genetic
study has advanced to the point where that term no longer is easily or
accurately compatible with the Code's taxonomic structure. I myself got
over my head easily a week ago using genetic or microbiological terms
wrongly in relating them to taxonomy.

Ron

>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl