Re: species, subspecies, strains, populations, races etc.

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@bewellnet.com>]

Piabinha@aol.com wrote:

> 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. >>
>
> 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.

I don't think anyone really does think they are 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?

Ah, you found the problem. It really is them darn taxonomists messing with Mother
Nature. Let's face it, usually species are isolated from other closely related
species. If not, it is unlikely that they would become reproductively separate
species in the first place. If species A & B (as identified by taxonomists) have
the same (or nearly the same) genetic make up and can readily interbreed with
each other, then it would be hard to claim that they are not the same species. If
they cannot, which intermediates belong with which species? Those that cannot
interbreed with Sp.A but can with Sp.B would be considered populations of Sp.B
and visa versa. It's all systematics, after all. Whether you call it a species,
subspecies or a population doesn't matter to the fish as long as they can produce
healthy offspring. Good old Mother Nature doesn't care one bit about what is or
is not a species - only humans feel the need to "cubby hole" everything into neat
little boxes. As long as we all know what we are talking about, it doesn't really
matter what name you use.

> 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.

I imagine they used the west Texas subspecies because it most closely matched the
Florida Panther. I'd have been happy to send them some of the larger Rocky
Mountain forms (The neighbor of my sister-in-law woke up to a half eaten cougar
kill in her back yard and they live right in the city of Boulder Colorado!)
Having walked into one of these big cats, I know I wouldn't want one for a
neighbor!

> 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.

It has been tried with genetic material recently. The results were very weird to
say the least. It seems that no matter what racial or ethnic make up we have, we
are all identical genetics-wise. We all have the same mitochondrial DNA in us,
meaning we all have the same great-great- great- ... great grandmother somewhere
back around 200,000 year ago (I guess there was an Eve). There are people living
in a small part of Mali, however, that show a minutely greater, but significant,
divergence from all other peoples of the world. The weird part of the study was
that it was found that these people also had greater divergence in their DNA
within their community than is found when comparing all of the people in the rest
of the world. Geneticists have no idea why this one small area has more genetic
variation than is seen in all of the rest of the world.

> not to mention it's controversial.
>  i don't know if humans can really be neatly sorted out in that way.

I hope not. I like to think that everyone out there is part of my family.

Mike Wise

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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"!



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"!