Well, the term superspecies is as arbitrary as subgenus. The only taxonomic
unit with a reasonable degree of objectivity is the species. In other words:
whatever term is used, it makes no sense either way, unless you are working
from a fixpoint such as a species. The term subgenus is used to subdivide
genus, the term superspecies shall cover various not-really species under
one hat, or, in other words, a superspecies is the same as species that has
subspecies. Contradictions welcome.



> Von: "Maurizio A. Perini" <[log in to unmask]>
> Antworten an: Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:41:16 +0200
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: A systematics question
>
> Sunday   August 27, 2000   06:40pm
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Does anyone know if the "superspecies" concept
> of Mayr (in 1969 he wrote: a superspecies is a
> monophyletic group of closely related and largely
> or entirely allopatric species) is the same for the
> nowadays idea of  "subgenus" ?
>
> Thank you for the your surely numerous answers !!
>
> (By the way, I'm not in a hurry since I'm going
> to eat a greedy Italian pizza!!)
>
> Ciao, Maurizio.
>
> ======================
> Maurizio A. Perini
> Via Pedrazza, 9
> I - 36010 Zane (VI)
> I T A L Y
>
> Voice  +39.0445.380378
> F A X  +39.0445.598315
> e-mail  [log in to unmask]
> ======================
>> Oliva Collecting & Study  <
> ======================