nf@ccicpg.UUCP (Ned Foboe) (07/04/90)
I'm responding to this here rather than in mail where I received it as the header was hopelessly mangled. It just said bit.net a 100 times over... >Subject: Re: what is a subspecies? >Newsgroups: sci.bio >In-Reply-To: <78558@ccicpg.UUCP> >Organization: University of Hawaii > >In article <78558@ccicpg.UUCP> you write: > >I am not a regular reader of this newsgroup, so excuse me if this >has already been answered to your satisfaction. > >>What is a subspecies ? How do subspecies differ from >>morphologically different populations of the same species ? >They may not differ at all. Ok, they *MAY* not. I agree there might be a one to one mapping between different populations of a species and subspecies taxa, but this may not always be the case. Examples abound of highly polymorphic subspecies. I was wondering where polymorphism ends and subspecies taxa begins. >A view of any taxonomic arrangement as fixed and, >heaven forbid, agreed upon by all is an over-simplification. Granted. >Subspecies also go by the term race, which may help clear >the air somewhat. If by this, it is meant that subspecies=race, than why even use the word race? If by this is meant race=population I disagree, vehemently. >Since there is no agreed upon metric for determining when >to populations are distinct enough to be designated as >separate subspecies or species, its a matter of debate for >taxonomists. Is that the answer I'm looking for ? It's just a judgment call on behalf of the taxonomist ? When the differences between a population or set of populations within a species is greater than some arbitrary threshold, a subspecies barrier is erected ? >>Ned. Who thinks he knows what a species is. I find it interesting that every set of biologists seem to have a slightly different set of criteria for establishing just where the species barrier is. What I deal with is cyprinodontiform fishes, and for these, meristics are all but useless. Much greater reliance is placed on hybridization experiments and even more on the morphology of the chromosome. >- Mike. Who thinks its not really that important. No, not if you're an armchair biologist :-)