Subspecies

[Mark Walker]

Ken Philip wrote:


> 	Mark Walker, quite rightly, questioned my comment about doubting
> the utility of subspecies. I should have been more specific (sometimes
> things just sort of slip out) and said that I doubt, in many cases, the
> utility of existing subspecies names for arctic/subarctic butterflies.
> 
> 	I have no quarrel with geographically well-delineated subspecies,
> which are common enough in the western US. But the history of applying
> names to arctic butterflies tends to look like this: person A makes a
> trip to arctic region X at some longitude, and describes a new butterfly.
> Then person B visits arctic region Y at a different longitude, finds
> a butterfly that looks a bit different from the first one, and describes
> a new subspecies. No one involved has any information as to whether the
> two 'subspecies' are possibly merely arbitrary points from a cline--which
> in fact they may be, but that fact won't emerge until a _lot_ of trips
> have been made to intermediate longitudes (not easy, or inexpensive, in
> these roadless regions).
> 
> 	There is an old comment that applies here--a sort of law of arctic
> taxonomy: The boundaries between described arctic subspecies always fall
> in uncollected areas.
> 
> 	A more general problem I have with subspecies is that their accepted
> nomenclature hides the one single most important piece of information
> about
> them: where they are found. What is your first question when someone tells
> you about a new ssp. of a butterfly in which you are interested? WHERE is
> it from? It would really be a lot handier if these geographic forms were
> _named_ for their localities--then you wouldn't have to ask. I know this
> is rank heresy, and will never come to pass--but one can still dream...
> 
> 	Sometimes an approximation to this happens: as with _Parnassius
> phoebus golovinus_. But it would be still clearer if it were called, let's
> say: _Parnassius phoebus_ [Golovnin Bay AK]. Not everyone knows that the
> village of Golovin is on Golovnin Bay...
> 
> 	I am talking here about old-fashioned morphological subspecies.
> When you start with DNA I suspect the number of subspecies could become
> astronomical.
> 
> 	Now I can prepare to receive the brickbats which will presumably
> be heading my way...
> 
> 
	Now that's about as satisfying a response as anyone could ask for.
I guess my only point (and it's not even relevant within the current
context, I suppose) was that if two collectors A and B were to find
morphologically different individuals of some species in two different or
displaced habitats, then there should be some convenient way of classifying
these differences so that more data will be collected.  Subspecies, race,
and form annotations are, IMO, useful for this purpose (though not very
consistent) - but are often not included in checklists or field guides.  I
like the idea of geographical annotations, by the way.

	Mark Walker.