names/systematics

[James J. Kruse]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, K.J.Caley wrote:

(snip)
>  ...... Casmerodius as part of Egretta when it is actually more closely
> related to Ardea and should warrant its own generic standing).

Okay.
How do you separate species characters from generic characters if you are
going to create yet another monotypic bird genus?  "Difference" is a
slippery and relative thing. Look at the unbelievably huge proliferation
of butterfly subspecies in recent years when systematists in other fields
have abandoned the concept long ago. I mean really, every _individual_ is
different somehow.

I do not know very much about bird systematics, only to say that it seems
at least half of all birds are monotypic genera. I can't see how that
is informative, even if you include the family name in every discussion.
I would prefer to see an "unusual" outlier included in a group that is
hypothesized to be closely related than name a monotypic family/genus/
species.

I am not jumping on you personnally, just trying to stimulate
conversation.

I await (expect) flames... but tell me what a subspecies is. I'm not even
sure what a species is and I consider myself a systematist (and no, I'm
not a lone idiot. The concept of species is an active, persisting debate).
I know all of the different definitions and associated arguments and think
of them while looking at morphology, ecology, molecules, etc., as I think
I should. 

Consider the statements: 
-Just because it is on a different mountain top/feeds on Rhamnus/flies in
the spring/has an orange dot/ doesn't mean it is 'different'.
-Just because it is on a different mountain top/feeds on Rhamnus/flies in
the spring/has an orange dot/ it must be 'different'.

chew chew!
Jim Kruse
University of California at Berkeley
Dept. of Environ Sci, Policy and Mgmt.
Div. of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall
Berkeley, California, 94720-3112
Voice: (510) 642-7410    Fax: (510) 642-7428
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/sperlinglab/kruse.html