Species Concept Question

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Croft
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Species Concept Question

snips


Isn't this just a long-winded way of introducing the forbidden in polite
society dinner time conversation topic ' What is a species?'  (it is right
up there with sex and politics...)

***********

Two operational bases.  One is systematic the other taxonomic.  I see those
operating out of a systematic focus more concerned with hierarchal
relationships and thus ranks - genus, subgenus, species, subspecies.  So
rank _placement_ is a big deal.  In a purely taxonomic focus, simply
recognizing that a _taxon_ exists and establishing its presence by a formal
name (at any rank) is most important.

I am more concerned with basic organism recognition than rank placement.  So
in situation one, it does not "matter" to me if the entities are _ranked_
either as species or subspecies.  It matters greatly that each is recognized
as a _taxon_ by having and individual epithet.

Scenario 2 has several options and one would need more field data to assess
what was going on.  One might end up recognizing a polytypic taxon, or one
or more subspecies or species depending on what, how, and why.

Since the original post was looking for some behind-the-scenes factors
(philosophy?), I give the following.  If I could change the way we present
taxa it would be like this.

Current way

Aus wus wus
Aus wus gus
Aus wus bus
Aus wus cus

The current way puts the basic (most real) taxonomic taxon last
(trinomial) - after the genus and species association.  This is a hierarchal
based (systematic) organic communication.  Let's say a later author decides
the relationships are as follows and expressed in the current way.

Aus wus wus
Aus wus bus
Aus gus gus
Aus gus cus

I would change the system of communication to this new way.

Aus wus (wus)
Aus gus (wus)
Aus bus (wus)
Aus cus (wus)

A change in species association would them look like this.

Aus wus (wus)
Aus bus (wus)
Aus gus (gus)
Aus cus (gus)

In such a system stability would be greatly increased simply because the
most basic taxon (subspecies) would in all cases be directly associated with
the generic placement while the (shifting) species associations would be in
parenthesis.  (Shifting in both human opinion and evolutional time.) Such a
system would also mean that in 10,000 years when Aus bus (wus) had evolved
to Aus bus (bus) it would still be basically Aus bus.  The name in the (  )
would be the _rank_ most apt to change.  Generic association would either
very rarely change or so slowly it would take millions of years.  The "basic
taxon" name would also either not change or become extinct.

There is nothing "sub" = inferior about sub-species.  It is just a humanly
devised term for recognized biologically unique and reproductively stable
regional segments of a species.  Even if there is only one
currently-known-to-man segment = subspecies = taxon, or 100.  No
"subspecific" segment is any more or less "The Species" = taxon than any
other "segment" = subspecies = taxon.

Ron Gatrelle