Taxonomy

[AzurePhoenix]

Exactly how is a subspecies defined? And how importat are they to science?How does one go about deciding if two individuals are entirely separate species or less distinct subspecies? I for one support subspecies with a whole-hearted conviction, but I am of the understanding that many do not.

 

I mean, a Siberian/Amur/Manchurian Tiger is obviously a different kind of animal from a Sumatran Tiger. Some people dismiss subspecies as unimportant. For instance, my bio teacher thinks we should just carelessly breed more common cougars with florida panthers to replenish their numbers, beause it doesn't matter if their distinguishing traits are flushed out because they're nothing more important than a sub-species.

[Mokele]

Personally, I'd argue that subspecies are more or less irrelevant fictions. They're geneticly distinct, but so are all allopatric populations. Should we classify the sunfish in each pond as distinct subspecies?

 

It's hard enough to get a working definition of species that doesn't fall apart when applied to the complexity of real systems.

 

Also, the cynical part of me says that sub-species is just something the mammalogists cling to in an effort to avoid the realization of just how species-poor and insignificant mammalia is.

 

a Siberian/Amur/Manchurian Tiger is obviously a different kind of animal from a Sumatran Tiger.

 

Not really, no. Sure, they look a bit different, but so do rat snakes from all over the US, and they're still all Elaphe obsoleta, and can all interbreed just fine.

 

For instance, my bio teacher thinks we should just carelessly breed more common cougars with florida panthers to replenish their numbers, beause it doesn't matter if their distinguishing traits are flushed out because they're nothing more important than a sub-species.

 

Well, given that the alternative is the very probable slow death via inbreeding of the Florida panther, I see no reason *not* to mix them. Many male florida panthers are infertile, or have only one testicle, thanks to the major population bottleneck caused by their endangered status. Unless new genetic material is brought in, they're pretty much screwed.

 

Mokele

[Hellbender]

Subspecies are slightly irrelevant, as they tend to add more confusion than necessary, but they do distinguish relatively recently isolated populations from others. A subspecies is a population of a lifeform that can still mate and produce fertile offspring with others of the same species, but is isolated enough from the rest to be sufficiently different phenotypically.

 

Tell me, is there a major difference with cougers and florida panthers? I would think bringing the population up by interbreeding them would be a good idea.

[Ophiolite]

I think all taxonomists should be required to recite the following every hour they are at work.

 

Classification systems are artificial systems, created by the human mind, designed to help us understand the diversity of nature by imposing an imaginary simplicity upon it. They are a wonderful tool for this purpose, but must not be taken literally, or too seriously, or out of context.

 

As long as we remember that, then sub-species can be a useful concept, for the reasons noted above, plus it gives researchers an increased chance of adding 'one of their own'.

[AzurePhoenix]

Really, there are very few diffs 'tween f. panthers and basic cougars, just something about coat color, I was just using that as an example. Mostly I agree, but also, I tend to look forward, and isn't the subspecies simply one of the earliest stages in speciation? Eventually (had we not driven them to near extinction them) Siberian Tigers and Sumatrans (an island bound race) would have inevitably diverged into totally separtate species in matter of however many millenia it takes to notice a substantial change. So, in a case in which the phenotype is clearly different between the races, and in which the said phenotypes are standard to the races, as long as the races are hoplessly separated, aren't they as important to taxonomy and biodiversity as individual species?

 

As for the cougars, I do think they should just go ahead and do what they can to ensure healthy genetic diversity, but I also think that those who make such decisions should be more senstive about it, you know, not just blow it off as insubstantial, because whether subspecies or species, by blending their gene-pool, a unique creature is being mucked-up with, and it's all our own damn fault. There should be a little plaque somewhere in washington commemerating each and every species and subspecies that we as humans have either driven to extinction or muddled up (such as F. panthers and Mexican Red Wolves).

[AzurePhoenix]

And yes, mammalia is species poor, but aren't we still relatively young? The other groups have had head starts spanning many tens of milions of years. Sure, mammals were around for a while, but until the big KT disaster, they were an evolutionary dead end. I wouldn't even try to expect them to be even as diverse as they are today. Of course, that's just me, and I'm a hopeless romantic

[Ophiolite]

There should be a little plaque somewhere in washington commemerating each and every species and subspecies that we as humans have either driven to extinction or muddled up

I'm not sure Washington is large enough, unless you make the plaques very, very small.

[Mokele]

So, in a case in which the phenotype is clearly different between the races, and in which the said phenotypes are standard to the races, as long as the races are hoplessly separated, aren't they as important to taxonomy and biodiversity as individual species?

 

Nothing is "important to taxonomy", per se. It exists merely to give us a linguistic and conceptual framework, not as an ends in and of itself.

 

As for biodiversity, well, what is a species? At what point do they become a species? Nobody agrees on this, and our idealized definitions never hold up in reality. Reproductive isolation, but on what terms? I've seen cross-generic hybrids, albeit captively produced (by mistake).

 

And yes, mammalia is species poor, but aren't we still relatively young?

 

230 million years, iirc. Snakes arose much later, and have 75% of the species numbers of mamals (and they're just a sub-order). Birds arose later, and flourished to a much greater degree.

 

Plus, of the 4000 mammal species, 1800 are rodents and 1000 are bats. that leaves a meager 1200 for everything else. (Plus, mammal taxonomy is *notorious* for splitting species at the slightest difference.)

 

Mokele

[Blackfin]

Isn't it arguable that we split hairs over Mammalians simply because we are mammals ourselves, and understanding other endothermic species is key to understanding our own phylogeny and morphology?

[Mokele]

To an extent, and that does underscore the importance of remembering what taxonomy truly is. But I'm not sure how 1800 species of rodents help us understand ourselves any better than if they're lumped into half that number.

 

Mokele