[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:51:55 -0600 (CST)
From: jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)
Quoting David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
> BTW, maybe it should not be compulsory to refer every organism that can be
> put into a clade to a species. Especially among fossils it is usually
> impossible to determine what species are (because only the
> morphospecies concept is applicable).
Before this becomes a topic of discussion, I would like to humbly refer
interested participants to the body of recent literature on "species concepts"
and concepts of species. This is no trivial search (no weak pun intended), but
there has been considerable thought put into what species are or might be,
beyond the pluralist synthesis represented by terms such as morphospecies,
chronospecies, etc. A somewhat current starting point for this search, perhaps
one that betrays my personal leanings, would be the following papers, and the
volumes in which they may be found:
De Queiroz, K. 1998. The general lineage concept of species, species
criteria, and the process of speciation, pp.57-75. In, D. J. Howard and S.
H. Berlocher (eds.), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
De Queiroz, K. 1999. The general lineage concept of species, species
criteria, and the process of speciation, pp.49-89. In, R. A. Wilson (ed.),
Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, Cambridge.
Enjoy!
Wagner