subspecies standards

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Runquist" <erunquist at hotmail.com>
Subject: subspecies standards

snip

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?

Erik -- Thanks much for this post.  It reflects how the vast majority of
people are totally off in how they _perceive_ the term  "sub" species,
genera, families, etc.  The word sub-species has absolutely nothing to do
with below as "inferior" - which is why the term has rarely been applied to
the human "race" (especially in modern times).  The people of each
"subspecies" would all feel slighted as they think that such a terminology
_means_ "they" are "inferior".   At the same time we know that the term
"races" has been and is in use widely.  You used it yourself - "Caucasian".
So as long as we say/place people in three "racial" grouping that is
acceptable (though not very politically correct).  Why - as the term race
is not acceptable as a zoological technical term.   It is because  "the
Caucasian subspecies"  is totally taboo because it is a utterly politically
incorrect phrase - and not because it is an inaccurate zoological term.  In
the realm of nomenclature "subspecies" only exists on paper as a term of
placement in a tree diagram or ladder sub-sequent in a listing.  Outside of
nomenclature none of _our_ rankings terms have meaning or even existance.
(Makes of Fords are not called subspecies.)   If humans had the correct
understanding of the word subspecies -- totally equal units that together
compose one distinct species, there would be none on earth that would mind
being identified as belonging to the ________ human subspecies.  In fact
once really, really, understood we might actually want the terminology as
it points to us all being total equals and totally one - yet proudly
"racially" (subspecifically) unique.  A diverse yet unified people of
earth.

>   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).

This is true because the horizon in this thread continues to be the entire
diverse organic universe.   If one focuses on bacteria or butterflies alone
things get much clearer.  When dealing just with Lepidoptera, species
become 95% (or better) "easy" to recognize - regardless of conceptual
definition (tools/methods of delimitation).  I asked this question once
before - is a Monarch a species?  If not, why not?  No one ever addressed
this. Am I wrong to assume that this is because no one disputes the _fact_
that Danaus plexippus is a species.  Theorizing is what one does in the
class room.  Application is what one does in the lab/field.  We can
theorize about everything and will never come to a conclusion on anything.

Again, thanks for this post as it positions us in another perspective of
this thread.

Ron Gatrelle


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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