Posted by:
RichardFHoyer
at Fri Jun 6 01:08:39 2008 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RichardFHoyer ]
CK, Still have many boas to survey and return to the field so just taking a short break this evening.
As I believe I mentioned before, I was fearful that the current mtDNA study on C. bottae would merely repeat the information in the prior mtDNA study of the species. As of about a week or 10 days ago, the individual conducting the new study has revealed some of the key results. He requested that I not reveal any specifics at this time as some of the results are preliminary.
But I can say with reasonable assurance that one block buster discovery will change the way C. bottae taxonomy is viewed. It's a bit difficult not to 'spill the beans' as it was the last few samples I suggested be tested, and then sent last summer, that produced the startling results. But I quickly add that the reason I suggested those samples be tested was to cover all bases from a geographical standpoint with respect to the two morphs. I had no inkling that those specimens would have the effect of what I believe will require a revision of C. bottae taxonomy. Actually there is one more sample that I have urged be tested but unfortunately, the lab facilities that were being used are no longer available. So that one last piece of the puzzle apparently will have to wait.
And just the past two days, he has relayed information dealing with the two subclades. Ta da! Without mentioning specifics, preliminary results indicate there occurs some overlap in the distributions of the two subclades.
Richard F. Hoyer
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]
|