subspecies standards

[Erik Runquist]

Hello All,
  This is my first contribution to the list, so bear with me.  Chris and 
Andy have brought up a point that I’ve always thought about, but for fear of 
being somehow labeled as racially prejudicial, had not brought up.  As they 
highlight, different authors seem to have different standards for the 
designations of subspecies (and species!), both within taxa (like Leps) and 
between taxa (like Leps and mammals).  Most of us would probably separate a 
variable Lep that is rather distinguishable phenotypically (or by some other 
character like allochrony or allopatry perhaps) at opposite ends of their 
ranges but can readily interbreed into two subspecies (some might even go as 
far as species depending on the consistency of the character!).  However, we 
are not willing (and justifiably so) to designate subspecies for modern 
humans (although we did for Neanderthal man).  After all (and I’m brushing 
with VERY BROAD strokes here for illustrations sake), don’t 
spatially-separated peoples sometimes possess unique phenotypes (skin, hair, 
eye color, etc come to mind)?  Peoples of, say, African decent GENERALLY 
possess darker skin, hair, and eyes than those of say eastern Asian or 
Caucasian decent, right? I would contend that these features would stand up 
to the 75% avian criterion that has been noted by Mike Gochfeld.  This has 
nothing to do with the superiority of one group over another (we all know 
what can happen when those beliefs are supported), and I am certainly 
frightened whenever we begin labeling other humans.  However, skin or hair 
color are artifacts of one’s heritage and the random mutations (some of them 
adaptive, some of them mal-adaptive, some of them neutral) that chanced upon 
their progenitors.  Should we not label these theoretical Leps or other 
“lower organisms,” as different subspecies because we know better than to do 
it for humans?
  The point of all this is what Andy has been stressing all along: we have 
varying standards for the designation of taxa, and the status of one labeled 
taxon is not necessarily equivalent to another (under whatever standard you 
want).  I also do not want to give anyone the impression that any one 
standard is “better” than any other standard or that there should even be a 
definitive standard; you learn Day 1 in biology that 1+1 sometimes equals 3.
  I know that this contributes little to the on-going discussion (which I’ve 
found rather engaging), but I hope that it at least accents the problems we 
face without offending anyone.
Erik Runquist
Ashland, OR


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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