> Last word for Peter U.: Do you really seriously believe that M.
eachamensis is more > closely related to M. s. australis than to M. s.
splendida? I don't. I explained before, why, > but may do it again if
anybody wants. Don't be a slave to socalled genetic results which
> force you to bend e.g. the geological history around some corners, we
also have other > methods, luckily.
Not neccessarily. I think all it says is that the Mitochondrial DNA
(MtDNA) in eachamensis is shared with M.s. australis rather than with M.s
splendida. I have not seen any other results of other genetic tests or
morphology on these species but I know the work is either done or in
progress. It is kinda complicated but for those of you with a genetic
background here is a short explanation. MtDNA is maternally inherited.
That means that every male of every species that has MtDNA does not pass
theirs on. Only the female's MtDNA gets inherited. MtDNA can "move
through" a species during a hybridisation event somewhat independantly of
nuclear genes and other DNA contained in a cell (although there is
usually a mixing of nuclear genes between the two species--this does not
happen with MtDNA). Now, the trick question is if two species hybridise
shouldn't there be two types of MtDNA floating around? Aparently
selection usually purges one of the MtDNA's thus you usually only find
one "type".
I think the hypothesis that australis and eachemensis were part of an
earlier invasion with a subsequent invasion by a similar fish is a
reasonable explanation. Do you have an alternate one Harro? I also
don't think it is bending any geological corners either.
Tootles
Peter Unmack