Species definitions!

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

OK, I confess :-). I do indeed have a bandwagon/agenda. There is so much
that we do not know about even such a tiny part of the biodiversity on this
planet as my friends the butterflies.  There is a lot of really speculative
stuff and just plain goofy stuff in the literature on butterfly taxonomy
that needs to be researched and reconsidered under a different light and new
information. We desperately need more people with energy and open minds
looking into these affairs. The idea that we intelligent human beings should
continue to repeat past errors in nomenclature and taxonomy just because
some people like to have stable names is highly abhorent to me. There cannot
be progress without change and there cannot be change without people
questioning the status quo as perpetrated by those who are willing to
subvert science for reasons of name stability or databasing technicalities.
That is my secret agenda - lets learn more about butterflies, lets have fun
doing it, lets correct the errors of the past, lets share what we learn with
other people who may be interested. As usual, everyone else is most welcome
to pursue their agenda as well :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: DR. JAMES ADAMS [mailto:JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:52 PM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Subject: RE: Species definitions!


Listers,

	I'm still catching up, but I have a couple more things to say.  I 
think I'm also jumping on Norbert's bandwagon (sorry, Norbert for 
presuming that you *have* a bandwagon).  He's saving me a lot of 
writing!

Norbert said:

<snip> . . . The chemical species
> concept might argue that two butterflies with, for example, less than
> 3% difference in gene chemistry are the same species. Extending this
> logic to mammals would result in chimpanzies and humans being declared
> the same species. I have some difficulty accepting that there is some
> magic level of similarity in gene chemistry that defines what is or is
> not a species.

This gets back to my point about subjectivity of taxonomic 
categories.  3% differences is certain traits may be incredibly 
important to certain organisms and represent what we humans 
might call even generic differences (or family differences when it 
comes to humans and chimps), but in other groups of organisms, 
3% difference in a trait may be completely insignificant and fall 
within normal variation even within a population.  What happens in 
insects may be in no way directly comparable to what happens in 
mammals, or monocots, or sponges (I'm purposely mixing 
taxonomic categories to make a point).  When you say a child can 
recognize the differences between moths and butterflies (even if 
this was a natural division), that is *all you can say*.  That child 
does *not* recognize the suborder level of taxonomic 
nomenclature, only names we have applied to what we *call* a 
suborder.  A subtle, but incredibly important distinction.  What 
constitutes suborders in one group of organisms might be 
perceived as families in a different group of organisms.  It *is* to an 
extent, no matter how much we don't want to think it is,  *arbitrary*!

James

Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
http://www.daltonstate.edu/galeps/  (Georgia Lepidoptera)
U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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