FW: [leps-talk] taxonomic status

[Kondla, Norbert SRM:EX]

Excellent points below-

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gatrelle [mailto:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:13 AM
To: TILS talk
Subject: [leps-talk] taxonomic status


I exchanged some thoughts with a fellow lepidopterist yesterday who happens
to be one of those who holds a key position in the world of what goes out
as proper nomenclature.  There are only a handful of such people here in
the US but they have enormous power simply do to their positions.  How does
the saying go - with great power comes great responsibility.  All of us
have our views on species concepts, systematics, taxonomy etc., but when
one becomes the sole person with the ability to put out what ever they
want - well, one can do as much damage as good.

Science is one thing, opinion quite another.  When the topic of the why and
how of ranking organisms into a nomenclature comes up it isn't long until
we begin to hear just how subjective the whole thing is.  Let's see, how
many "species concepts" are floating around - 25?   Yet when these same
people put out their pet position in some context other than argument, it
seems to me that they almost always state flat out that their position is
the only correct one.  No subjectivity or 20 some scientifically "equal"
concepts now, it is their way or the highway.  There are these grand open
minded discussions, followed by some of the most dogmatic closed mindedness
one can find outside of religion and politics.

We can't have it both ways.  If the assessment of organic relationships is
subjective at all then no one person or group has the right to impose their
opinions onto everyone else as this-is-the-way-it-is.  On the other hand,
if there is no subjectivity in any given area of science then no one person
or group has the right to proceed or operate outside of those boundaries.
If the first scenario is the actual state we are conducting our
nomenclature under, then some (due to their unilateral positions) are
nothing more than censors who are imposing their opinions on the rest of
us.  If the second scenario is the way things should be, then there are
some who are basically just nomenclatorial anarchists.

Two situations.  First, in the email exchange today the other party made
what I am sure they feel was a simple statement is passing.  They said,
"...and if they are clinal then they are not subspecies."   They did not
say that they just don't personally like clinal subspecies - they stated
that there flat out are no subspecies if a cline is present.  Remember my
long post of the other day where I quoted part of a paper I wrote
explaining how subspecific and specific level taxonomy are accomplished in
different ways?   I said anyone who uses the same means and methods for
both levels will always be in error at one level.   Well, here is a real
life example.  This individual is attempting to assess subspecies via a
the species level criteria of _isolation_.    Also, remember my pie post of
the other day?   Here is another one parallel.  Consider the color wheel.
Red, Blue, Yellow, the primary colors.  Well, they aren't real and don't
exist.  Why?   Because as anyone who has taken any art classes at all knows
( or has ever looked at a rainbow)  they _blend_ one into the other.
Clinal subspecies are just as real as the primary colors on the color wheel
and exist in absolutely the same way.  If there is a critter in say the
entire northeastern US that is easily seen both by the human eye and our
knowledge of its evolutional history as  Dark Red - that is a valid
subspecies.  If there is also a massive regional population from the mid
atlantic area all the way to California that is clearly a part of the same
species as Dark Red but this component is International Orange, then that
is a totally vaild subspecies too.  Further, if there is in all of Florida
a Lemon Yellow population (which means it also has its own unique
biogeographical history)  That two is a valid subspecies in this species.
The fact that all these _distinct_ subspecies all are connected with areas
of clinal morphs (redish orange, yellowish orange, etc) has absolutely no
bearing at all on the reality and validity of the geographically massive
and unvariable fully evolved subspecies.    Throw in this too.  Let's say
that smack in the middle of International Orange's range in a couple
counties in the Ozarks there is a really odd all Sky Blue population that
was once considered a species but is now known to be a sister subspecies of
the other three.  Well, that is a totally valid subspecies too.

I can make this even more complex.  Let's say that Sky Blue is single
brooded and only flies is the spring.  But there is an all Black population
that only flies in the fall in the exact same few Ozark counties.  These
never come in contact with each other in time but inhabit that exact same
space.   These too are two valid subspecies.

A subspecies is:
Any regional population of a species that has evolved into a unique
reproductively stable component of that species.

A "region" can be a time frame.  Subspecies can be in the reproductive
adult stage at the same time but not at the same location. Or, the in the
reproductive adult stage at the same location but not the same time.  In
these cases "isolation" _exists_ but it is a far stretch to then deduce
that _isolation_ must exist for all _other_ types of subspecies.   Listen
closely, in all subspecies there is _seperation_ but not _isolation_.
Seperation is accomplished by isolation is time or space, or by the genetic
buffer zones (blend zones) present in clinal subspeciation.  These zones
themselves evolved over thousands of years.  They are like the shower when
you first turn it on.  First, ice cold (subspecies) blending to scalding
hot over a short or long period of time (= space in our analogy) depending
on how much the water is turned on.   Would any same person say there is no
such thing as hot or cold just because warm exists between the two?

This post is long enough so I won't go to my second example relative to
things that are written in stone and how we have nomenclatorial anarchy.
I will just say this, it has to do with those who thumb their noses at the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Ron Gatrelle

PS .  So why don't we see "subspecies" certain places?   Someone in a key
position (bottleneck) doesn't "believe" in them that's why.  But, they
cloak their censorship under the pretence of good-science.



TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999 

Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com 
Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com 
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com 
For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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