[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BOUNCE killietalk at aka_org: Non-member submission from ["Axel Schwekendiek, DKG 585" <dkg at exotics_net>]
Dear all,
can anyone supply reprints, copies or scanned files from JAKA article
regarding A. lujae:
JAKA 2/1/1970
JAKA 7/1/1972
JAKA 7/1/1996
JAKA 12/1/1969
JAKA 7/1/1972
Regards,
Axel
(German killifish Association: www.dkg.org)
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkarpawi at indiana_edu>
To: <killietalk at aka_org>
Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Mai 2000 04:34
Subject: Re: kilies species missing from the JAKA list namechanges
> >What be the point of carving up the Aphy`s now too? Soon, we will have
> >no idea what we are keeping.
> >
> >Port Jefferson
> >Long Island, NY
>
> These days systematics is in a fair bit of upheaval now that a flood of
> molecular data is coming in. However, once the data is worked through,
the
> groups are on substantially firmer methodological ground than old
taxonomic
> methods, so I suspect the groups will be more stable. Be happy the groups
> more of less stayed intact. Some groups have turned out to shatter when
> subject to this kind of analysis.
>
> Based on the article, it sounds like the problem with not carving up
> Aphyosemion is that Fundulopanchax and Epiplatys would have to be sunk
into
> Aphyosemion as well to do it. What a mess that would be ! The problem is
> that the west African forms aren't at all closely related to the
> Aphyosemions, but each of the three old subgenera are good taxa (i.e.
> monophyletic) and more closely related to each other than anyone else. If
> you were to lump them it would be to sink them into Epiplatys, not
> Aphyosemion. I wish they'd put the whole tree in the JAKA article, but
> oh, well. As far as I can make out the tree looks something like this:
>
> Scriptaph. Archiaph. Callopanchax Epiplatys Fundulopanchax
Aphyosemion
> \ / / /
\
> /
> \ / / /
> \ /
> \ / / /
> \ /
> \ / /
> \ /
> \ / /
> /
> \ / /
> /
> \ /
/
> \ / /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \
>
> With all of the genera being good groups. Does that sound right to you?
> No need to bother with Scriptaphyosemion (aphy (Rol)) bertholdi, since
none
> of these ever belonged in aphyosemion to begin with.
>
>
> All in all, when the traditional taxonomic groups and molecular data line
> up that well, it usually means things aren't changing again. The movement
> of species around usually stems from disagreements about relationships,
> which now seem fairly well resolved. Someone may come along and try to
> sink Callopanchax, Archiaphyosemion, and Scriptaphyosemion together into
> Callopanchax, but that'd be the extent of it.
>
>
> Altogether pretty exciting I'd say, but then I'm nerdy!
>
>
> Doug Karpa-Wilson (Karpa (Duaine (Foster)))
>
>
> Doug Karpa-Wilson
> Department of Biology
> Indiana University
> Jordan Hall
> 1001 E. 3rd St.
> Bloomington, IN 47405
>
>
> ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe