In defense of lumping :-)

[Mark Walker]

Kenelm wrote:

<some snippage on Colias sp>

> 
> 	The original names are all still available (as 
> subspecies) should
> anyone wish to use them. But I find the contemplation of a 
> single pan-arctic
> species more satisfying than an allopatric array of taxa 
> originally listed
> (variously) as subspecies of _nastes_ or as hybrids between 
> _nastes_ and
> _hecla_. Future work may change this picture--but I see 
> nothing inherently
> wrong with the underlying concept as long as it stands up. 
> Lumping ipso
> facto need not be feared...

OK, so perhaps in the end "they" have gotten the taxonomy right.  Or have
they?  It may be more satisfying, and even more accurate, but without all of
the investigation would any of this be known?  To what extent were the
sub-specific names an enticement for your investigations?  Perhaps the
sub-specific names are still available, but who's to say they'll be readily
available for future amateur/hobbyists who may be inclined to provide new
data?

I suppose many would consider this a minor point, but it would seem to me
that too much filtering might result in less sampling and therefore less
data.  I consider it important to capture the perceived diversity in nature
in all publications - whether it be through subspecies naming or otherwise -
so as to stimulate the gathering of additional local information.

Mark Walker
enjoying the SoCal summer
> 

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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