 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
