cryptic and sibling species

[Ken Kinman]

   I am inclined to agree with Les.  Seems like "cryptic species" is used in
many different ways.  I think I would prefer to continue using "sibling
species", whether it involves two or more species that are morphologically
difficult to distinguish.
     It does seem like using the phrase "cryptic species" (unless placed in
a clear context) has the potential for a lot more confusion than any
possible confusion between the terms "sister species" and "sibling species".
    Thanks for all the feedback on this issue.
                    --------Ken Kinman

>From: Les Kaufman <lesk at BIO.BU.EDU>
>Reply-To: Les Kaufman <lesk at BIO.BU.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: cryptic and sibling species
>Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:13:45 -0400
>
> >Cryptic is a term that can generate more confusion than sibling.
> >
> >It has meanings in ethology, morphology, conservation biology...and
>systematics.
> >
> >Sibling species, as far as I know, carry no baggage other than their one
>pair of genes (usually).
> >
>
>Les Kaufman
>Boston University Marine Program
>Department of Biology
>Boston University
>5 Cummington Street
>Boston, MA 02215
>
>e-mail: lesk at bio.bu.edu
>phone: 617-353-5560
>fax:   617-353-6340
>
>
>  Ex Africa semper aliquid novi.
>"There is always something new out of Africa."
>  - Pliny the Elder

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com