[Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis

[Robin Leech]

Am just pointing out that this is not a new discussion.
Cryptic species exist everywhere - our problem is that
we do not have enough refinement in our morphological
searches to distinguish - say the different cricket species
in eastern NAm - but we can genetically and behaviorally.

And in spiders we get, for example, 2 morphs of males of
the same species.  Just interesting tidbits.
Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
Cc: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>; 
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Peter Kuchar" <peterkuchar67 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] An improved definition of cladogenesis


> Until we can demonstrate one way or the other, for the purposes of 
> communication and taxonomy, does it matter?
>
> Jim
>
> On 14/03/2010, at 6:53 AM, "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net> wrote:
>
>> The fossil and the extant specimens are
>> morphologically identical.  But, are they genetically close
>> enough to breed?
>