Fwd: Re: Species Concept Question

[Steve Manning]

(Part 2)

>>  How would you approach the
>>situation differently if population "C" was discovered and known for many
>>years as a single, highly variable species, and only later was it realized
>>that the two endpoints of the variation spectrum were each represented as
>>broadly-distributed but allopatric populations?  Similarly, what if in
>>Pattern 2, only populations "A" and "E" were discovered initially, and named
>>as separate species, and then subsequent research revealed the existence of
>>a cline of populations?
>
>This would cause me to want to place the two species in synonymy.
>I see nothing wrong with this as a natural progression in taxonomic
>knowledge.  When in doubt, split until further info. comes in and don't
>feel a bit bad if the later info. results in combinations.  I think the
>earth's morphological diversity is more likely to be precisely and
>carefully described this way.  Whether that diversity ultimately is
>interspecific or intraspecific is less important than that it be well
>described at some point in time, and this is most likely if done at the
>species level rather than subspecies or lower.
>
>>As I re-read this note, I am still not satisfied that I have conveyed my
>>true question.  The true question has to do with the ways that history and
>>observation of geographic distribution influence and bias our nomenclatural
>>decisions.  Obviously our nomenclatural decisions ARE biased by both
>>geographic distribution *and* historical nomenclature.  We all know that (or
>>at least should acknowledge that).  But I'm trying to get at the heart of
>>the nature of how we are biased by these influences, and how those biases
>>and influences relate to the notion of species boundaries as defined
>>intrinsically by the essence of the organisms themselves; vs. species
>>boundaries defined only in an historical evolutionary context, vs. species
>>boundaries that are defined as a convenience of communication among
>>biologists.
>
>I think the last concept is the most important one.  Despite what I said
>above, I am really more of a lumper than a splitter when it comes to what
>is a biological species but recognize that in the absence of hard data on
>that, we should not gloss over identifiable distinctions.  (But note - I
>do believe that even many of the morphological differences that no one
>would quibble about, even if no intermediates exist, may just be the
>product of one or very few genetic changes.  Many existing species
>distinctions may represent only single gene differences or responses to
>environmental factors.)
>
>>Perhaps I have achieved nothing but wasted bandwidth; in which case I
>>sincerely apologize.  But if any of the above sparks interest among list
>>members, perhaps the ensuing discussion might help me understand how to
>>articulate my true question.
>
>No, I really think this is important.  In my not-too-distant retirement, I
>wonder if I should even bother to do any alpha-taxonomic work or plant
>collecting in my spare time if it is going to require doing cladistics or
>DNA analysis along with it.  I am much more interested in the present
>and  future of the earth's biodiversity than its past, and would love to
>see a worldwide acre-by-acre survey of extant taxa, including species
>descriptions; preservation of representative ecosystems as well as
>possible; and let future generations do the other analyses (population
>genetics and hybridization experiments too if desired) after the surveying
>and preservation issues are solved.
>
>Steve Manning
>
>>Aloha,
>>Rich
>>
>>P.S. The distribution patterns described are not hypothetical -- they are
>>based on very real examples in reef fishes; some of which involve species in
>>my own group of interest.
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
>>Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>>Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
>>1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
>>Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
>>email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>>http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html