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

["José J. V. Carvalho" <zeco@bbci.com.br>]

Tsu (maybe you could explain our fellows the meaning of you e-mail name:
Piabinha):
>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?

If there is a gradation between the populations A and B I wouldn't separate
them as species, but join them as an unique polimorphic species. There is an
interesting example in orchids, the complex Maxillaria acicularis Herbert,
1904 - 3 very different forms - M. acicularis Herbert, M. paranaensis
Barb.Rdr. and M. cogniauxiana Hoehne - where united by Hoehne in 1952 when
he
discovered a location where they meet and you could see a widely polimorphic
population ranging from one to another, without a single specimen that you
could call "pure" (I do went there and see it). He only make a mistake in
giving them a new name - M. heterophylla Hoehne - and not using the older
name
from Herbert.

>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.

There is too an example where the authorities released hybrid turkeys (wild
X domestic) to "rejuvenate" a population. From the few that survived and
breed in the wild, their offspring have smaller brains and where weaker than
normal wilds (Sorry, I can't find the references).

>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

I have an old book that belonged to my grand-grand-father when he was
studying medicine: "Histoire de la création" or "Doctrine scientifique de
l'evolution", Ernest Haeckel, French translation from the 16º German
edition, 1875.
In the pages 518-519 he shows the table and the genealogical tree of the 12
species and 36 subspecies of man. When I was in the University, I took this
book to the class of evolution, the best 4 hours of the entire course!

Mike:

>Your idea of a subspecies would be considered a species by many
"splitters".

I do know, if I where a taxonomist I think would be more a "splimper", who
that split his group of interest and lump the others.
The concept of species is very simple: two populations that, when NATURALLY
in contact, don't have a gene flow between them make two species, otherwise
they belong to the same species. The keyword is naturally, and the practical
problem is how to test it if the populations are separated in space or in
time. As one professor of mine said: "species is that what that a good
taxonomist days it is..."

Sorry for the long post and for the mistakes in English,

Zeco





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