subspecies

[DR. JAMES ADAMS]

NOrbert writes:

> One could just as easily observe that numerous butterfly species have
> been "overlumped" rather than being "oversplit".  Lumping through
> application of the "genitalic species concept" seems to be a fairly
> common phenomenon. There is in many cases little or no 
evidence to
> support some long standing taxonomic assignments so any 
opinion is as
> good as any other opinion.  

It, of course, depends on who you talk to, as you suggest.  I agree 
that this has also occurred.  Indeed, one of the cases that bothers 
me the most involves a number of Mitoura "species" having been 
sunk into one "superspecies" (don't get me started), Mitoura 
gryneus.  Long standing, recognizable entities like siva are now 
gone, at least in some people's minds!!  (Mitoura is the one of the 
Olive/green hairstreak genera in the U.S.)

If we ignore subspecies and assume that
> present species level taxonomy is correct then we will learn nothing
> new.

I'm not saying this at all.  Nomenclature is going to be in a state of 
change as we do more and more work.  Work on subspecies is 
important *if* it is done in a manner which applies to something 
relevant from a biological standpoint as far as the organism is 
concerned, and not simply because something looks a little 
different, or its found in a different place.  My reply to Chris Guppy 
(coming up) will approach this question further!

	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"