[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Random Samples



> Barcoding works much better than I'd have thought,
> but still, it forces a 
> phenetic species concept upon everyone. Cases where
> such a concept does not 
> lead to the same results as other concepts have been
> published in Systematic 
> Biology, where much of the discussion on DNA
> barcoding has taken place over 
> the last year or two.

Not to forget Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
where there was a general discussion about molecular
taxonomy over the last year or two. I think I saw one
or two papers in Cladistics too.

Here's the paper BTW
http://www.barcodeoflife.org/barcode/batsbirds/literature/MEN1670_final.pdf
Supplementary data:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/suppl/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01670.x/suppl_file/MEN1670_suppmat.doc

What I find actually worse is the sample sizes and
lack of specimen data*. It's as if one left away
stratigraphy data in paleontology. Certainly, what the
paper does *not* do is establish new species. See also
doi:10.1017/S147720000500191X


Regards,

Eike

* Especially regretful in the only decent n, Canada
Geese, which are a phylogeographic and taxonomic mess
even after the split from Cakling. Captive-bred birds
are generally of little use here, so it would have
been nice to know where the things came from.


                
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de