species, subspecies, strains, populations, races etc.

[Piabinha@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/22/1999 2:27:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
apistowise@bewellnet.com writes:

>  > << A subspecies is presently  considered as nothing but a population 
within a
>  > valid species. >>

>  I'm not very familiar with Tiger systematics, but I do know that based on
>  skeletal features alone they are identical. For that matter there are 
> virtually no skeletal differences between tigers and lions! Obviously there 
are 
> external (color pattern) and behavioral (solitary vs. pride) differences 
that put 
> them in different genera, but you can't see it in their bones. Yes, 
Siberian Tigers 
> are larger than Bengals or Sumatrans, but the central African Watusi people 
are 
> twice the size to the West African Forest People we used to call Pygmies. 
Are they 
> not the same species? The same can be assumed for the different populations 
(
> formerly subspecies) of tigers. Subspecies is now considered an archaic 
term. Instead 
> they are now referred to as species populations. These tiger populations (
> subspecies) might be raised full species status if anyone can prove that 
they are
>  biologically distinct.

hi mike, zeco and others,

i'm glad we can have this discussion without flame wars like we had in the 
livebearer list.  i think that it can be potentially a minefield esp. when 
discussing humans.  i had always thought that the different tiger populations 
were considered subspecies, but never heard anyone that considered them to be 
separate species.  and what distinguish these "populations" is not just size, 
but fur, color etc.

while some of these populations are quite distinct, i think with apistos, 
killies, birds, and many other examples; the complication is really the 
gradations in between such "distinct" populations.  example, if we had fish A 
in location X and fish B in location Y, and they are agreed to be 
sufficiently distinct as to be 2 separate "species."  however, what do you 
call all the intermediate species in between those 2 ranges and which differ 
slightly from location to location?

another example we discussed was that of the florida panther, considered to 
be a subspecies of the puma or cougar.  recently wildlife "officials" took 
the unusual step of introducing the west texas "subspecies" in florida to 
breed with the florida panther in the hopes of "saving it".  due to low 
population numbers and inbreeding (or at least that's what was believed, 
although some say it is also due to pollution and other human effects), there 
was a large number of birth deffects in that population and the hope was to 
"rejuvenate" that group.  

as for humans, i think it's not just that we consider all humans to be one 
single species, but even a single subspecies (???).  attempts to separate us 
into "subspecies" have never been attempted, i think, mostly because most or 
all human populations are "mixed" anyway.  not to mention it's controversial. 
 i don't know if humans can really be neatly sorted out in that way.

tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!