 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Just what's needed |
| From: | |
Stu
|
posted
Tue, Mar 3 2009, 11:58pm
|
|
I enjoyed that. Nice to see the hard breakdown of the very base of what it is we're looking for in these parts. Only the stupid & the disinterested could fail to clearly disseminate your piece, which says as much for your style as your substance. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Just what's needed |
| From: | |
badger man
|
posted
Wed, Mar 4 2009, 7:48am
|
|
That's a really nice blog. I think most people (including myself) thought that there was not a real debate on this topic. It is definitely something to ponder. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Just what's needed |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Wed, Mar 4 2009, 9:51am
|
|
not only is there a debate, but it's probably one of the most vicious debates in biology. I have heard of shouting arguments at meetings between PSC and BSC proponents. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Just what's needed |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Wed, Mar 4 2009, 9:50am
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Just what's needed |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Fri, Mar 6 2009, 11:04pm
|
Excellent mysticete!!! It's a shame that you have not received a better response for this blog; which is yet another indication that people prefer science fiction over science fact.
Some months ago, I read an article in Scientific American about determining species. I would refer to it now, but one of my sons borrowed the magazine for a school project and never brought it back. Like your blog, it spoke of the zoological dilemma of dividing species. The article used a lot of scientific jargon that went over my head, but basically said that many animals we presently place in the same species, may not be, and vice versa.
So what do we have ... cryptospecies?
Looking forward to your next blog. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Just what's needed |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Sun, Mar 8 2009, 9:53pm
|
not far off..the term for morphologically indistinct species is "cryptic"
Just as an example, this year alone papers have come out on suggesting the addition of 4 new species of birds for North America, and we have a fairly well studied avifauna. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|