A re-subspecies concepts forward. relatively short and to the point

[John Shuey]

Three things.

First this thread is starting to bug me.

Second botanists do use a construct that seems very similar to subspecies to
me. Here's a web page definition:

    Variety: A subdivision of species which describes naturally occurring
changes, sports, or mutations that create a distinctively different plant in
appearance. The same plant may grow on two different continents but grow
taller on one than the other or have identical flowers forms but different
colors. These would would be an example of different forms or varieties. The
key words are "naturally occurring". Those that reproduce the different
characteristic without human intervention are named true varieties (var.) or
forms (forma). Those varieties that require human intervention (asexual
reproduction methods), are known as cultivated varieties or "cultivars" for
short. These are sometimes abbreviated cv.

Here's a more technical definition from Swink and Wilhelm's "plants of the
Chicago Region":

        Variety -- An infraspecific taxon with a range or habitat relatively
distinct from other taxa within a species.

And finally,  (as I last said relative to the Lep Soc "standard names
committee"), taxa are constructs of the human mind - used to help us
understand the natural world. Be it a species, genus, family, or subspecies,
each taxon name we apply to an entity is at best, a human attempt to place a
static classification on a dynamic process.  And given that species and
subspecies are closest to the action, our mental constructs are more often
open to re-interpretation.

As Andy Warren has pointed out, you really do have to have a theoretical
underpinning if you are going to be pinning names on entities at this level.
Your names have to conform to your world view such that you can defend them
(and justify these taxa within that world view).  This can be as easy as
saying:

"This subspecies is new because it looks different and since I'm a
creationist, if it looks different, it must be a new species."

(Don't be harsh, this statement neatly explains an author's world view and
their justification for describing a new species - you the end user, have a
key tool needed to evaluate the validity of the name - and it well could be
a valid name)

Or it can be as convoluted as:

"These morphologic characters in conjunction with the distribution and
ecology of E. dukesi calhouni have convinced me that this taxon deserves at
least subspecific status.  The accumulation of so many differences between
these two taxa suggests that they have been isolated for a considerable
length of time.  Further studies in northern Florida and southern Georgia
should be initiated to discover the micro-distribution, ecology and
potential interaction of these taxa in the area of potential sympatry.  In
light of the many morphologic differences between these two differentiates,
it is probable that they function as independent species if their ranges
overlap.  Based on the limited material examined to date, there is almost no
evidence of intergradation between these two subspecies.  .......  Thus, my
decision to describe the Florida populations as a subspecies rather than as
a full species is both conservative and arbitrary, and future investigations
may well indicate that my decision is too conservative."

I wrote that a few years ago, and its not such a neat package, but the
reader can't not know why I described a new subspecies if they actually
managed to read that.  If you are going to describe taxa at any level, you
have to tell the users of your taxa how you arrived at your conclusions, so
that they can at least say .. hmmmmmm...  that sure is some construct he
erected there.


John A. Shuey
Director of Conservation Science
Indiana Office of The Nature Conservancy
1505 N Delaware Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202
317.951.8818



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20011126/acbb74f5/attachment.html