On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Dennis Paulson wrote:
>[snip]=20
> But I'm not tendering an argument that any particular plumage character
> should be given especially great weight to distinguish phyletic lines of
> orioles. I *am* claiming, however, that, other than the mtDNA data, ther=
e
> is no evidence for a *cladistic* phylogeny of these orioles that would
> place Baltimore and Bullock's as anything but sister species. The mtDNA
> data fly in the face of both morphology and behavior in this case, and I
> still remain unconvinced that this is good evidence for the "genealogical=
ly
> improbable" hybridization of the two that David cites as evidence of the
> fallibility of the biological-species concept.

Just two short comments --

1) The point I was trying to get across with the plumage example=20
is that we don't have any *cladistic* study of oriole phenotypic=20
characters to compare with Scott Freeman's mtDNA parsimony/max=20
likelihood analysis. Phenetic analysis -- simply tallying up=20
similarities and differences among taxa -- is unreliable=20
for deducing phylogenetic relationships from morphological=20
characters. Simply noting similarities between Bullock's,=20
Baltimore, and Abeille's that are not shared by other orioles=20
is phenetic, not cladistic, analysis, and it doesn'=92t really=20
argue for or against Freeman'=92s tree. But again, if you want=20
to get a suite of characters together, I volunteer to run them=20
through PAUP. [How many of these spp. do you have at the=20
Slater? I believe the Burke recently acquired some additional=20
tropical orioles.] =20

2) I want to emphasize that I am *not* arguing against using=20
*reproductive isolation*, which is the conceptual core of the BSC,=20
as a basis for a species concept. My argument is with the operational=20
criteria classically used to lump phenotypically distinct populations=20
into single species: hybridization and "potential interbreeding." =20

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu