subspecies standards

[Erik Runquist]

Hello All,
This is my first posting here, and I apologize if this is sent multiple time 
(my connection is weak). 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