Subspecies

[Anthony Cynor]

I wonder what the splitters would do with the human species!

Tony

"DR. JAMES ADAMS" wrote:

> Listers and Xi,
>
>         I was wondering when this thread would get started.  I have
> some very strong *opinions* on this subject, but will try to keep my
> own rhetoric to a minimum.
>
> > Over the years, I've noticed that most butterflies are divided up into
> > quite a few subspecies, while most moths have no such division.  So,
> > is the reason for this lack of subspecification due to the fact that
> > butterflies are studied more than moths . . .
>
> The answer to this is an absolute "yes".  All you have to do is pick
> up a copy of the recently published book, *The Systematics of the
> Butterflies of Western North America* (or something like that) to
> see that the butterflies have been subspecified to death (check out
> the genera Speyeria and Euphydryas)!!  As far as I'm concerned,
> numerous butterfly species have been *oversplit*, with little
> biological evidence presented that the different populations that
> have all been named are truly genetically differentiated to the point
> where they are truly something different.  Sure, maybe the
> maculation on the wings is a little different in this population, or the
> shading on the underside of the hindwings is a slightly different
> tone, but does this mean anything important evolutionarily?  I
> believe a lot of the splitting has to do with vanity -- people *like*
> seeing their names in print.  (Flame away!)
>
>         I actually have a problem with the subspecies concept as a
> whole.  If something is truly isolated genetically from other
> populations so that it is on its own evolutionary path, then its only
> a matter of degree, and completely subjective, as to whether to call
> the "entity" a subspecies or a different species completely.  There
> may be a storm coming as well -- with our increasing ability to be
> able to pick populations apart at the molecular level, I can see a
> point where every little molecular difference may be used to say
> "hey, here's another subspecies (or species)."  Hopefully,
> scientists doing this work will do so with some reason, and not call
> every separate molecular entity a new name, without some
> evidence of biological meaningfulness.
>
> , or is there an actual
> > biological/evolutionary reason?
>
> I can't believe that there would be.  The existence of subspecies (if
> they really do exist) is completely dependent on the vagility of
> popuations and whether or not gene flow can occur.  Some
> butterfly species have been split to death, whereas others have not.
>  Why?  Some species fly relatively long distances without a
> problem, whereas others are very sedentary.  The same would be
> true for different species of moths.  Moths have simply been less
> studied, and to some are less glamorous (thankfully!!), so the
> species have been split less.  And don't forget that the moths
> outnumber the butterflies by as much as 20 to 1.  We haven't
> finished naming the *species* of moths yet.  Given some time, we'll
> probably get around to splitting a bunch of the moths as well,
> whether they deserve it or not!
>
>         James
>
> Dr. James K. Adams
> Dept. of Natural Science and Math
> Dalton State College
> 213 N. College Drive
> Dalton, GA  30720
> Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
> U of Michigan's President James Angell's
>   Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"