subspecies

[asolodovnikov]

KK>     I think it depends on what group of organisms you are working on.  When
KK> I was a professional mammalogist, subspecies were very useful and important,
KK> but at the same time I was collecting spiders in my spare time, and I found
KK> very little use of subspecies in the arachnid literature.  Because we are
KK> mammals ourselves, collections of mammals are far more complete and better
KK> studied (as are other groups we gravitate towards, such as birds and
KK> butterflies).  Perhaps it is just natural to subdivide a better known group
KK> more finely than lesser known groups (such as spiders).
KK>                     ------Ken Kinman
KK> P.S.   Personally, I have always had a dislike of subgenera.  Of course, I
KK> might feel differently if I was studying a greatly speciose genus of
KK> beetles.

KK> ______________________________________________________
KK> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I am following this "subspecies" discussion with keen interest,
because currently I have a problem: to describe the subspecies or not.
I work on the revision of beetle genus within the Caucasus, the mountain
area where no extensive collections have been made. As a result, I
have few situations, when I have couples of close allopatric forms,
each of which is represented by 1-5 specimens. Through some practize with
"good" species in my beetes, I somewhat trained the eye about: 1)the "size"
of hiatus which should be between "good" species; and 2) about intraspecific
variability. Using these practical standards, I really have a
headache, either these close allopatric forms are different species, or they
are extrems of intraspecific variability. Nobody foresee good collecting in
the Caucasus now to get more material and to solve the puzzle. What to
do now?: 1) to describe such forms as separate species (I do see some
minute hiatus basing on available material!); 2)to describe subspecies, just
illustrating the point that difference is very delicate; 3) just to discuss
the cases of such variability providing no ranc for such forms? Myself, I am
leaning towards the decision 1 as the more exact. Option 2 seems to
be not much better as description of indefinite "var." quitted by entomologists
long ago. Option 3 is probably not bad, but it looks as something indefinite. If
I am choosing option 1, the name, proposed for the new species, could be used
for a further subspecies (if further data downgrade it) or, in the worst
case, will be placed in synonymy. But should I afraid of such possible synonymy
in this case?

I was looking through various revisions of coleopterists, and
see that people avoid now descriptions of the subspecies which would
be based on few specimens. Subspecies are described when there is
rich material and the difference between allopatric taxa exists, but
it is so elicate as illustrated by statistics. It looks like
additional illustration of the situation Ken Kinman pointed about.

If so, what ever nature would be the subspecies of, it looks as
they do exist. Otherwise, we should say, that widely prooved and accepted
simple statistic methods produce artefacts?

I feel to be poorely educated in modern ideas about subspecies. I
understand (if I understand correct?) Mayr's concept of subspecies
as some conventional category which illustrates the really existing
phenomenon. Basing on it, I am looking for the practical decisions in
my concrete project, and coming to the option 1. But what other people
would do with the cases I faced with?

Sincerely,

Alexey Solodovnikov
Zool. Institute, St. Petersburg, RUSSIA.