genera

[Chris J. Durden]

Yes. The clustering of morphological traits is the result of this fractal 
clumping.
...........Chris Durden

At 09:44 AM 9/4/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Although if a genus defines a recipocally monophyletic linneage, it is
>biologically informative, especially if that clade is defined by some
>trait which may have lead to it's radiation.
>
>Jeff Oliver
>jeffrey.oliver at colorado.edu
>
>On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, DR. JAMES ADAMS wrote:
>
> > Xi,
> >
> > > Perhaps you've explained this already in a previous post and I missed
> > > it, but why is Mitoura a genus?
> >
> > There have undoubtedly been other responses already to this
> > question that I simply haven't read yet (catching up after a Labor
> > Day weekend), but I may have a different one.
> >
> >       The answer to this question is simple.  Differences of
> > interpretation and opinion.  But there is a more basic underlying
> > idea that must be understood.  As far as the biological world is
> > concerned, there *is no such thing* as a genus.  A genus, and all
> > higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial* constructs used by
> > humans to represent some level of relatedness.  Genera, families,
> > etc. cannot evolve (with the rare hybridization being the only case
> > of some fuzziness) -- only species and populations of species.
> > Once species are genetically isolated, what happens to other
> > evolutionary lineages that they once were connected to are of no
> > importance to the evolution of that lineage (with the exception of
> > some kind of ecological connection).
> >
> >       So there will *always be* disagreement on what constitutes a
> > genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs.
> >
> >       James
> >
> > Dr. James K. Adams
> > Dept. of Natural Science and Math
> > Dalton State College



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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