Exist sub-species????? (A modest proposal)

[Kenelm Philip]

        I work with butterflies--a group in which subspecies have run
amok. In the arctic (my region of interest) there is a general rule:
the boundaries between described subspecies always fall in uncollected
areas.

        I therefore made the decision many years ago to ignore subspecies
when arranging the specimens in the Alaska Lepidoptera Survey collection,
and arranged specimens within the drawers (and drawers within any given
species) strictly _geographically_. Ideally, all the specimens of a
species would be pinned onto a large map of Alaska--but that is not
feasible. Instead (since the state lacks any meaningful subdivisions)
i used the 1:250,000 USGS quads, and ordered them in a sequence that had
some relevance to the major floristic zones within the state.

        It became obvious that the major datum one wants to know about
any geographic form within a species is simply its location--something
that a subspecies name does not reveal. The first question you would
normally ask someone who mentioned a newly described subspecies of a
species you were concerned with would be "WHERE does it live?".

        As I see the situation, then, one could happily drop the subspecies
name (and category) and refer to these populations by their species name
followed by a locality indicator in square brackets. That would instantly
tell you what you really wanted to know. If I talk about _Colias hecla_
[Eagle Summit AK], everyone will know what I am referring to without]
having to track down an OD to find out the TL. If this population can
be distinguished by various characters from other populations, you are
free to say so.

        This does not follow the ICZN, but then there is no rule that one
cannot state where something comes from when talking about it.

        I will now retire to my bunker and await the flames...

                                                        Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu