In my post about microsatellites and mitochondria there were a few errors. Fortunately, the author of the paper that formed the basis for a large portion of what I wrote also happens to be my professor. I petitioned him for review:
I stated that mtDNA is powerful as a tool for determining relations within a species. It should have read that mtDNA is useful for determining certain evolutionary patterns. There’s little excuse for this mistake.
I said genetic variation as determined by microsatellites is an indicator for population health. This may be true, but it isn’t possible to really be sure. If natural selection is acting upon these points, then populations with more variation may have better fitness.
I stated that populations are managed via arbitrary geographical lines. I actually meant political lines, but it’s unclear if that is true. This depends upon the level of coordination in management and conservation between the U.S. and Canada, and precisely where the borders fall. More on this later. Update: The political lines largely follow the geographical divides. There is some overlap, but it is minor.
I’ve also corrected some minor language here and there, as well as a citation (the paper I used was from 2004, not 2003). All the updates can be reviewed on the original post.
Thanks to Chris for his help.