Cynthia

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

No, I disagree that we disagree (completely) with each other. From what
you have said of yourself, I would say you are a systematist, not a
taxaonomist. My view of a 'taxonomist' is embodied by your statement:
'...there was a period when subspecies where being described simply by
simple "similarities and dissimilarities"...' 

Stan

Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> 
> I disagree completely.  I don't think I've described a taxon in the last 6
> years that did not include an evolutionary theory as to its origin.  I have
> also proposed a new kind of subspecies - phenosyncronic.  A type of
> parallel evolution.  Further, I have stated that this type of subspeciation
> is more significant that simple morphological or phenotypic subspeciation.
> I would say that cryptic species come through the route of phenosyncronic
> subspecies.  Euphyes bayensis and Euphyes dion are examples.  They do not
> differ in genitalia and many males are very difficult to distinguish by
> human sight.  Now, I do think that the reason a lot of folks don't like
> (butterfly) subspecies is that there was a period when subspecies where
> being described simply by simple "similarities and dissimilarities".  But a
> great many taxa have been presented with a lot of evolutionary
> consideration and mapping - esp. biogeographical.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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