names and the ESA

[Patrick Foley]

Chris and all,

Flowering plants and mammals frequently show clinal characters. One also, as has
been discussed here, sees clinal variations in darkness up latitude or altitude.

I have nothing against subspecies names if it makes labeling convenient.
Sometimes a subspecies is an incipient species, and that is worth noting by a
name. But many times the geographic location is as good a marker for a type, and
it is convenient to have a bunch of names already made for you. As an added
convenience, naming a group of organisms by their location avoids having to
commit yourself taxonomically or evolutionarily. Thus fewer useless arguments!

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

"Chris J. Durden" wrote:

> Seems like a frustrating exercise in semantics. I would think that "any
> distinct population segment" would have to be identified in order to be
> talked about. To talk about
> the  Spruce-Knob-of-West-Virginia-population-segment of *Colias interior*
> is tantamount to polynomially naming a subspecific entity. Surely it is
> simpler to describe it and name it trinomially. It is clearly different
> from the population segments of the same species in Pennsylvania, upstate
> New York and eastern Ontario, at least one of which has its own subspecific
> name. Perhaps my problem is that I find the punctuated equilibrium model of
> speciation fits everything I have looked at so far. The character step
> between each subspecies corresponds to the punctuation in time or in space.
> ..............Chris Durden
>
> At 09:25 AM 2/2/2001 -0900, you wrote:
> >Chris:
> >
> >Ron and I have been going back and forth on the pluses and minuses of
> >subspecies as a taxon. He and Harry Pavulan (sp?) wrote that names were
> >required for protection. I pointed out to him that according to the
> >Endangered Species Act, this was not true. My message is below. Please
> >feel free to comment on line about this, but I have officially surrendered
> >because I do not feel I can spend the resources to debate this person
> >anymore.
> >
> >The exact quote from the law book: "(15) The term "species" includes any
> >subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
> >segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
> >when mature."
> >
> >  "any distinct population segment". The argument that a population
> >has to be formally recognized taxonomically is invalid.
> >
> >See it yourself at:
> >http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html
> >
> >click on definitions, scroll down to #15.
> >
> >James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
> >Curator of Entomology
> >University of Alaska Museum
> >907 Yukon Drive, PO Box 756960
> >Fairbanks, AK  99775-6960
> >Phone: 907.474.5579
> >Fax: 907.474.1987/5469
> >http://www.uaf.edu/museum/
> >
> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Chris J. Durden wrote:
> >
> > > At 04:49 PM 2/1/2001 -0900, you wrote:
> > > >I've already shown that Ron's crusade as stated above is a war against a
> > > >straw man based on the wording of the Endangered Species Act.
> > > >
> > > >James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
> > > >Curator of Entomology
> > > >University of Alaska Museum
> > >
> > > Wow! Did I miss something?
> > > ..............Chris Durden
> > >
> > >
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl