concept 4

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: concept 4
snips


> Many many years ago, Dean Amadon of the AMNH published the 75% rule for
> avian subspecies, indicating that

snip

> This may not apply to butterflies, but it is an "objective definition of
> a subspecies" in print (AMNH Bulletin circa 1950s).
>
> Mike Gochfeld
>

Yes, the 75% rule has been applied to butterfly subspecies also (as I am
sure Andy is well aware).   I mentioned this earlier, but there is a
several page dissertation by myself on species/subspecies in The Taxonomic
Report  2:2.  I dealt with this in broad terms and then specifically with
phenosyncronic subspecies.

I emailed Andy a note a few days ago letting him know I am so far behind I
have got to let this drop - at least for awhile.  I was glad to see Chris
post on this as some of his points were ones I was going to make.  One
being the Latin root where spec  simply means to look, behold = sort,
appearance, form.   This is why many of the early workers used the English
words "form" and "variety" - meaning "species."  It is why some segments of
zoology still use "variety" a lot.  It just means "Hey, these look
different." (TO HUMANS.)     I need to stop here and get back to work.....

If someone just dropped in from Mars to this discussion they would get the
impression that "subspecies" was some new novel idea.  There are thousands
and thousands of subspecies (intra species entities) in zoology - described
by scores of taxonomists over 250 years and still going strong.  From that
perspective this thread seems odd at the least. In other words, definitions
or not, if there are no subspecies, or if they are rare anomalies of
nature, or etc, why the heck have ALL the world's greatest naturalists and
taxonomists recognized and described so many thousands of them over the
centuries?   And why are most endangered animal, bird, plant, and butterfly
"species" a subspecies?  If we do not have a definition for the color or
taste of air, does that mean it does not exist?   And how stupid would an
argument over the color or taste of air be -- when it has neither!

I need to stop here and get back to work.

But...  There are a number of things I would like to (and will) address at
some point in time.  In the mean time some of you (with time) might want to
look through any number of butterfly books and dig out and  post the
various definitions (views) of subspecies therein.  Glossaries are great
things.  Which reminds me that one of the most important definitions of
subspecies is that given by the ICZN   "subspecies... (1) The species-group
rank below species, the lowest rank at which names are regulated by the
Code. (2) A taxon at the rank of subspecies."   Like I said in another
pervious post, subspecies are only "sub" as in "below"  on paper.  In
nature they are the base unit(s) of speciation (re Lepidoptera) -- just as
species are the base within a genus.   (See, now I've got myself going -
distracted from my work.)  As  some genera are composed totally of only one
species, so by the same principles all species have at least one
subspecies -- the nominate.  Got to go.

Ron Gatrelle

PS  Thanks to John Grehan for pointing out the double standards of logic
being posted.  John's posts were a mirror to say that what/how we
accept/critique will have to be applied to our pet areas too.  Or as they
way here in the south, what goes around comes around.

PPS   There is a fledgling conversation going on at TILS Leps-talk
(aYahoo!group) on Chlosyne palla eremita as to its proper author and even
its validity as a subspecies for those who are gluttons for egoups
punishment (or just addicted).



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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