"And/or is this using DNA from the alleged "Pailsus pailsi" that I later inspected in 2003 and found to be nothing more than a normal P. australis?"

That is an interesting point. If the mtDNA material is not from a taxon in dispute, it will of course not show any difference. This can be checked because the exact specimen and locality from which mtDNA has been extracted will be identified in the paper. But even if the source of the mtDNA is not in dispute, mtDNA data cannot be used to show whether two animals are the same species or not, since it is not possible to delimit species using mtDNA data because such data is simply genetic distance data. A species which has arisen quite recently can show minimal mtDNA divergence from its parental species, but it can evolve considerably morphologically in that short span of time. On the othe hand, 2 populations of the same species can show much more mtDNA divergence without displaying any changes in morphology.

Bottom line is this, it will take much more than mtDNA data to show that two populations are conspecific and it will take much more than mtDNA data to show that they are not.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]