Cryptic Species Discussion

[Thomas Schlemmermeyer]

The term "cryptic" is descriptive, be it in the ecological or taxonomic sense,
the term "sibling" is predictive in the sense that it predicts genetic
relatedness.
I guess even Gunter's animals are not completely unrelated, or are they really?

On (         Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:41:09 -0700),         Fred Rickson
<ricksonf at BCC.ORST.EDU> wrote:


>----------
>> From: Dr. G. Koehler <gkoehler at SNG.UNI-FRANKFURT.DE>
>> To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>> Subject: Cryptic Species Discussion
>> Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:08 AM
> These
>> two species are so different in hemipenis morphology (hemipenis
>> surface covered with calyces versus covered with numerous spines) that
>> judging from this observation, these two species (cupreus and
>> macrophallus) may not even be closely related. However, externally
>> both species are extremely similar and we could not demonstrate a
>> single morphometric or pholidotic character that would be useful to
>> differentiate between the two species. Thus, these are typical
>> "cryptic species".
>
>However, I just finished a study which found 8-10 apparently new species of
>unrelated invertebrates which live in hollow stems and have never been
>collected although their home range has been collected for 150 years (Sri
>Lanka).  They apparently don't venture out of the stems much.  Using the
>English language, I suggest these are cryptic species.  It does get
>confusing, because the lizards noted above do not seem to be sub-, sister,
>or sibling.
>
>Fred Rickson
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo
Caixa Postal 42694
CEP 04299-970
São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Residência:
Thomas Schlemmermeyer
Caixa Postal 00276
CEP 14001-970
Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil

Fone, Fax: 016 6371999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------