Re: complexes and groups

["V Kutty" <kutty@earthlink.net>]

Mike Wise wrote:

>My divisions (groups & complexes) are based on a system originally proposed
by
>Kullander in his 1980 monograph and expanded by Koslowski in his 1985 book.
These
>divisions are used solely for purpose of species identification. It doesn't
make
>any claim that the groupings are monophyletic. Since this system doesn't
need to
>prove relatedness, it can include all of the species in the genus. My
groups are
>roughly equivalent to their complexes and my complexes are roughly
equivalent to
>their sub-complexes. They just make no claims to inter-relatedness. For
years
>I've worried about my use of the term "complex" and any confusion it might
cause.
>I use "complex" because this is the term originally used by Koslowski. To
avoid
>confusion with true species-complexes, it might be better to use
"sub-group"
>instead. Old habits die hard I guess, so for now if you read something
using
>group/complex then you should understand this refers to a
non-monophylogenetic
>grouping.


Mike,  to be able to use the term 'complex' you have to demonstrate the
relatedness of the included species.  This was pointed out to me when I
submitted an article titled ' Crenicichla species of the saxatilis complex'
to Kullander for review.  He suggested using 'Group'.  That was in 1994 and
I just finished the article.  :-)

Vinny




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!