CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Kay Lavalier <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:26:36 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Andrew Vik
Tampa, FL., USA
[log in to unmask]

Ross:

I subscribe to a few of the malacological journals (The Nautilus, Malacologia, etc.).
I can't remember reading about any taxa above species level that were erected solely on genetic
comparison.

Andrew

Ross Mayhew wrote:

> Classically, genera were defined solely on the basis of conchological and sometimes radular
> charactaristics as well.  However, with the advent of genetical analysis, it seems inevitable that
> some genera and other "higher order" taxa will be spit up, modified, or even defined at least partly
> on the basis of this type of analysis.
>   My question is: has this started to occur already (example(s)?), and if it does, how is the
> chonchologist without access to such advanced equipment to "corectly" assign new species to genera??
> Curious in Canada,
> Ross M.
> --
> Ross Mayhew:    Scns alize in the Unusual"
> Phone: (902) 876-2241     Snail Mail; P.O Box 20005, RPO Spryfield,
> Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3R 2K9.
> But try to find "something for Everyone"!!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2