`Richard F. Hoyer 'Discovery of a Probable New Species in the Genus Contia' Northwestern Naturalist Winter 2001, 82:116-122'



Odd.. I guess that journal isn't in the database I was using for some reason.



`I have all reviewer's comments but it isn't worth the effort going back and reviewing that frustating period of time. The new species is not truly cryptic but what I would term as pseudo-cryptic as adults of the two species can be segregated one from the other by visual means. This major visual differentiation is by relative tail length. I originally called Contia tenuis as the short-tailed Contia and the new species as the long-tailed Contia.'



Have you figured out what scientific name you intend to use for the new species, yet?



In reference to the rest--it seems that if you've got the mitochondrial data and multiple non-overlapping morphological differences that there's not much question these are separate species... odd that the reviewers would've been so negative. I was thinking that maybe it was just a pro-molecular bias, but I guess that isn't the case. Too bad they don't let you know who reviewers are, as that might've made clear what political BS might be influencing the situation.



And I'd love a reprint, if you don't mind. Local biology library doesn't carry Northwestern Naturalist (though they do have Southwestern Naturalist--I guess the southwest is just more interesting ; ) ). I'll email you my address...



Patrick Alexander

[ Show Entire Thread ]