cryptic and sibling species

[Curtis Clark]

At 07:19 PM 10/17/99 -0400, Kipling Will wrote:
> Our
>terminology refers to both our hypothesis of a sister species
>relationship and the fact that the two species were mixed in series, the
>less common one effectively hiding from taxonomists like T.L. Casey

If one accepts the equivalence of "sibling species" and "cryptic species"
(as Ken does), "sibling species" and "sister species" are not necessarily
coincident. Imagine a case where there are two species that are both
cryptic and sister; let us call them B and C. If B gives rise to a third
species A, which differs from it morphologically, the relationships are
((A,B)C), so that B and C are still siblings but no longer sisters.

I learned "sibling", but I think I'll switch to "cryptic" to avoid the
confusion.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu