names and the ESA

[Chris J. Durden]

At 09:03 PM 2/2/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>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.

Yes there are plenty of one character clines in plants and animals. What I 
would like to see are multiple character clines and I have not. I think the 
true test of clinal characters is to take eggs from each end of the "cline" 
and rear them to maturity at the middle of the range or out of range. The 
relaxing of regulator genes (under abnormal microclimate) will unleash a 
host of masked characters which will tell you whether you have different 
subspecies or not. The classic studies were done with plants many years ago 
in California by Stebbins and earlier than that in Russia by Mitchurin.

>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!

No I don't think so. Sometimes a boundary between subspecies is narrow and 
bisects a named geographic feature. I think formal naming, with type 
specimen and type locality is much more effective and less open to 
misinterpretation.
...............Chris Durden

>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
> >



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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