Subspecies vs. species?

From: MOTO_DO at t-online.de (Thomas Mottl) on 1999.01.13 at 15:11:28(2889) Aroiders, What I ever want to know is how is a subspecies defined? No botanist I asked gave me a sharp definition. Or is it only a point of view? For. example: The Anthurium guayanum Bunting was in the revision of the Section Pachyneurinum made to ssp. of Anthurium bonplandii. Yesterday I get Vol.II Flora of the Venezuelan Guyana. There I found that Dr. Bunting who write the Araceae part, made this Anthurium again to a species? So what is the accepted name? The only nice definition I found is from Charles Darwin's Life and Letter P. 105 "Varieties (ssp.) are only small species" Can somebody give me a hint? Thomas Mottl +More moto_do@t-online.de

From: alistair_hay at rbgsyd.gov.au on 1999.01.15 at 15:31:37(2901) Either I have missed some aroid-l messages or no-one has given a broadcast answer to this HORRIBLE question! Anyway, this is a brief and feeble attempt. There is no categorical and universally accepted definition of subspecies, nor species, nor genus etc. They are ALL points of view, though I would dispute your `only' points of view, since they are usually carefully constructed even though there may be vigorous disagreement. There is an immense literature on the subject - particularly of species concepts. At bottom, the definition of a taxon (i.e. species, genus, family, subspecies etc.) depends on the organism group concerned and the resources and predilections of the taxonomist working on it at the time. The evidence on which recognision of discontinuites between plants is based is empirical and thus `objective', but interpretation and evaluation in terms of when certain kinds and degrees of discontinuity warrant recognition of species or subspecies is subjective. Basically, subspecies are generally used when a geographical race is recognised within a species - populations which differ slightly from the rest in morphology and perhaps ecology and which occupy a coherent part of the species' range. However, if they can be recognised in this way, why not call them species, instead of creating tedious trinomials? As to what is the accepted name in a case where there is a difference of opinion, make up your own mind, or follow the author you most respect!! This is a case where name changes are based on taxonomic opinion rather than ones demanded by the rules of nomenclature, so what you accept is up to you. In anticipation of a rain of abuse... Alistair Hay +More ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Subspecies vs. species? Author: at mailgate Date: 13/1/99 9:14 Aroiders, What I ever want to know is how is a subspecies defined? No botanist I asked gave me a sharp definition. Or is it only a point of view? For. example: The Anthurium guayanum Bunting was in the revision of the Section Pachyneurinum made to ssp. of Anthurium bonplandii. Yesterday I get Vol.II Flora of the Venezuelan Guyana. There I found that Dr. Bunting who write the Araceae part, made this Anthurium again to a species? So what is the accepted name? The only nice definition I found is from Charles Darwin's Life and Letter P. 105 "Varieties (ssp.) are only small species" Can somebody give me a hint? Thomas Mottl moto_do@t-online.de

From: "Greg Ruckert" <greg at ezi-learn.com.au> on 1999.01.15 at 22:28:17(2907) Thanks to Alistair for having a go but I was interested in the difference between subspecies and variety. We have a number of times where authors change a variety to a subspecies only to have later authors ignore this and revert them to varieties. Couldn't one of these terms be reasonably made redundant? Anyone? Greg Ruckert +More Australian Areae Collection http://www.ezi-learn.com.au/areae/default.html

From: "Julius Boos" <ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 1999.01.16 at 17:27:35(2912) Dear All, First off I believe we all owe a vote of thanks to everyone who has so kindly taken the time off their busy schedules to attempt to answer what really is the unanswerable questions!! For me, a special thank you to Wilbert and Alistair, GREAT information, guys!!! To put my two cents worth into the ring, I agree COMPLETELY with all that Alistair trys to explain above, and you did a GREAT job, Alistair!!! As I have been involved in other scientific disciplines besides plants, a few of which are a little more clear-cut in comparison to plants, perhaps I can help A LITTLE with our folks understanding of the genus/speciessub species 'thing". As Alistair tried to point out above, all are some persons/Scientist`s opinion, hopefully arrived at only after long and VERY careful study and considerations, discussions with other experts, etc., but the bottom line may be that there is no 'god' of science to make a final judgement as to if a certain individual`s opinion is totally correct, and the issue remains open to be changed IF someone comes along with new or better information that puts the item in a new light, this happens ALL the time, and is why science of all classes will always be in a state of flux!! Concerning the subspecies/species 'thing" I give as an example a rather long story as to why it is important not to jump to conclusions as to this being an unnecessary thing. Many years ago, one of my Mentors in Trinidad was a Scientist called Erik Kjellisvig-Waering, who was the world expert on Euripterids, fossil and living scorpions, and HIS personal example of a scientist that NEVER made mistakes was the Englishman at the B.M., Pocock, who published extensively on W.Indian and other scorpions of the world. One of the things that always worried the heck out of Erik, was that Pocock had discribed a sub-species of scorpion from a tiny Island S. of St. Vincent and N. of Grenada called Bequea, and named it Tityus smithiii microdon, and said it differed from the Grenadian species (T.s.smithi) by possesing a different tubericle under the "stinger" (both of these scorps were quite distinct from the species found on St. Vincent, the next Island 'up' the West Indian chain, and from the ones found on Trinidad, the next Island 'down' the chain). To Erik, this did not make sense, as scorpions are particularly 'cut and dried' from an anatomical standpoint, and Erik thought that perhaps Pocock was to finally be caught in an error, perhaps based on only examining one specimen that might have had a deformity, but to prove this theory, several new/additional specimens would need to be collected from Bequea Island, NOT an easy or common destination to visit back in those days!!! He made three trips there, and even with the most modern collecting instruments at the time, U.V. lanterns, had failed to come up with a single specimen. I was due to go there to collect Anolis lizards for the M.C.Z., and told him that I`d get a few for him, and this was regaled by rounds of laughter, as obviously since he, the expert, had failed to find a single specimen in three extensive collecting trips, a mere boy would fail with no U.V.lanterns, and only having two days to collect both lizards AND to try for scorps. +More To cut an already-too-long story short (er), on arriving on Bequea, I went to the only local Grade School there, and with the lone teacher`s permission, questioned all the 10-11 year old boys as to if THEY had ever seen scorps. on their Island, and ONE said that he remembered seeing several under rocks, but on a remote part of the Island, when his family was collecting soldier crabs for food (!!). I then rented the ONLY Land Rover on the Island, drove over to the spot with three boys 'rented' from the school master for a few hours, and we collected over 20 specimems!! On arrival back on Trinidad, I rushed them over to Erik`s home, and he rushed upstairs to his study, and microscopically examined them all for a short time, and I can see his face to this day, pale, as he said to me "Pocock was indeed correct, that man was a genius!" There was no way that you could consider the Bequea specimens sufficently different from the nominant species on Grenada to name it a new/different species, but it was certainly different enough from the Grenada species to justify the necessity of sub-specific rank, which strengthened the theory of an evolving chain of species stretching up/down the chain of W.I. islands, different species on different islands, and though Bequea and Grenada are seperated from each other by sea, they are part of the same island "mass", (separated from the St.Vincent 'mass" by a deep water channel), and for long enough for the scorps on Bequea and Grenada to evolve to be slightly different from each other, but recognisable as being closely related, so a sub-specific status was very justified in this case. Hope that this little story MAY help to explain why sometimes there is value in sub-species status for a population, but as Alistair says, it is all in the individual Scientist`s perception, and this is subject to change based on additional info. or another`s interpritation. Let`s keep talking, and Happy New Year to all! Sincerely, Julius

From: MOTO_DO at t-online.de (Thomas Mottl) on 1999.01.18 at 18:46:14(2920) Thank you all, you made a "Blind man " seeing (a liitle bit). I understand now, why this question is so "HORRIBLE, UNANSWERABLE", but before asking here Aroid-L, I ask many people, read in many books and no one and no book ever give me such good explanations about this problem. There were always those "something small things" or this "certain different enough" thing, which Julius also wrote, which differs a species from a ssp.. And in life there are rules for everything, why not for this? So I thought, when I ask here, someone can give me an answer. Now I know that it is such a small border between species and ssp., that only can be seen, with much experience and maybe "feeling" an naturally many time spending on research ans comparing. In the future I will try, not to ask after such horrible and unanswerable things (I hope!). Thank you ALL once more. Thomas Mottl +More moto_do@t-online.de J

From: Aroideae at aol.com on 1999.01.18 at 22:13:24(2921) Dear Thomas, << only can be seen, with much experience and maybe "feeling" an naturally many time spending on research ans comparing. In the future I will try, not to ask after such horrible and +More unanswerable things (I hope!).>>> I must disagree. Your questions are exactly the ones that should be asked. The answers, if there are any, are not in the books. Such questions are what make the study of plants interesting because it's an on-going, evolving field of knowledge. That's what Aroid-L is all about!!! Thankyou for your excellent questions!! I've learned much from the posted answers. Sincerely, Lynn Hannon

From: plantnut at macconnect.com (Dewey Fisk) on 1999.01.18 at 22:19:16(2922) Thomas, No question is 'horrible and unanswerable' !!!! If you don't know, then ask away anytime about anything. That is the purpose of aroid-l. Just in case you were wondering.... I did not know the difference and now I have a better idea... So, your question was good!! Dewey +More Dewey E. Fisk, Plant Nut THE PHILODENDRON PHREAQUE Your Source for Tropical Araceae

From: alistair_hay at rbgsyd.gov.au on 1999.01.19 at 02:18:15(2923) The question was excellent AND horrible: excellent to ask and horrible to answer: maybe that's the definition of a good question. Don't stop! Alistair +More ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Subspecies vs. species? Author: at mailgate Date: 18/1/99 12:49 Thank you all, you made a "Blind man " seeing (a liitle bit). I understand now, why this question is so "HORRIBLE, UNANSWERABLE", but before asking here Aroid-L, I ask many people, read in many books and no one and no book ever give me such good explanations about this problem. There were always those "something small things" or this "certain different enough" thing, which Julius also wrote, which differs a species from a ssp.. And in life there are rules for everything, why not for this? So I thought, when I ask here, someone can give me an answer. Now I know that it is such a small border between species and ssp., that only can be seen, with much experience and maybe "feeling" an naturally many time spending on research ans comparing. In the future I will try, not to ask after such horrible and unanswerable things (I hope!). Thank you ALL once more. Thomas Mottl moto_do@t-online.de J

From: Al Wootten <awootten at NRAO.EDU> on 1999.01.19 at 02:24:27(2924) Please continute to ask vexing questions, Thomas. At the very least, we were charmed by Julius' story on the subject, and learned a little something about scorpions! Clear skies, Al +More +---------------------------------------------------------+ |Al Wootten, Slacktide, Sturgeon Creek at the Rappahannock| |Deltaville, Virginia (804)776-6369 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

From: Jmh98law at aol.com on 1999.01.19 at 04:25:09(2926) Thomas, Thank you for posting your query. It is your question that gives novices like me the courage to even ask a question. I'm still trying to learn the rules governing a forum discussion [and I think I've broken at least one or more. Now that I have read more about the rules, I promise to follow them] . I enjoyed the roundtable discussion of your subject, subspecies vs. species, just as I am enjoying other extended and passionate discussions on this forum. [I think, for example, of the discussion about Philodendron 'Xanadu' --- "digging" for the answer to a question!] What subject is more deserving of "passionate discussion" than aroids??? I must confess that, now an incurable collector and hopefully, propagator, of Arisaema, I am a fan of Georgia O'Keeffe, and have a huge [AS IN HUGE] print of one of her "jack-in-the pulpit" paintings in my living room ---- acquired long before my incurable disease of love for Arisaema. O'Keeffe surely understood the passion of this plant. [Fortunately, my disease is not fatal --- only incurable!] +More Jeanne Hannah Traverse City, Michigan USDA Zone 5b

From: plantnut at macconnect.com (Dewey Fisk) on 1999.01.19 at 15:10:22(2927) Jeanne, > [Fortunately, my disease is not fatal >--- only incurable!] You are so right about our 'disease'. I remember going into a nursery years ago and there was the most beautiful Anthurium splendidum that could be imagined. I had to have it... It was not for sale. I had the rent money for the coming month in my pocket... I offered. Fortunately, for the landlord, the offer was turned down. If this disease were fatal... I would have been gone a long time ago. I really think it is the reverse. My neighbor and friend is approaching *90* and has been active in plants for years and, disregarding the calendar, he is much *younger* than I am. I have come to the conclusion that this disease is "a good thing". Dewey +More Dewey E. Fisk, Plant Nut THE PHILODENDRON PHREAQUE Your Source for Tropical Araceae

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 1999.01.23 at 02:48:18(2941) In a message dated 1/13/99 6:59:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, MOTO_DO@t- online.de writes: > Aroiders, +More > What I ever want to know is how is a subspecies defined? No botanist I > asked gave me a sharp definition. Or is it only a point of view? I large part, subspecies are just points of view. Generally, subspecies correspond with particular populations of a species, separated, for example, geographically, or on the basis of minor characteristics. In general, I do not use subspecies at all, but speak only on the species level, as all subspecies can successfully interbreed anyway. Subspecies are useful primarily by taxonomic specialists, and in some cases, by preservationists (the case of the Mexican wolf comes to mind).

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 1999.01.23 at 02:57:45(2942) In a message dated 1/15/99 2:16:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, greg@ezi- learn.com.au writes: > Thanks to Alistair for having a go but I was interested in the difference +More > between subspecies and variety. We have a number of times where authors > change a variety to a subspecies only to have later authors ignore this and > revert them to varieties. Couldn't one of these terms be reasonably made > redundant? Not entirely. Hitchcock and Cronquist, who wrote the "Bible" of Pacific Northwest flora, use both terms, subspecies and variety. Generally, they use "subspecies" for variants which occur in discrete populations (e.g., geographic races), and "variety" for variants which occur periodically within populations (e.g., pink-flowered plants of an otherwise blue-flowered species). However, this brings up another question--what is the difference between "variety" and "forma"?

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 1999.01.23 at 03:05:35(2943) > Although not always, many variegated plants occur on the forest floor. The > theory was that insects crawling along the floor, would see light coming > through the leaf, and the paler areas would give the appearance that the > leaf had already been eaten away in parts, and was not fresh material. > Who knows? +More > I have heard the same theory about the naturally occurring holes in the leaves of Monstera; however, personally, I do not believe it. Insects' vision is undoubtedly different from ours, and whether they could make a deduction on the freshness of a plant leaf by its appearance is unknown, as their mental processes are little-understood.

From: Lewandjim at aol.com on 1999.01.24 at 04:02:10(2949) In a message dated 1/22/99 9:36:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, StellrJ@aol.com writes: << In a message dated 1/13/99 6:59:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, MOTO_DO@t- +More online.de writes: > Aroiders, > What I ever want to know is how is a subspecies defined? No botanist I > asked gave me a sharp definition. Or is it only a point of view? In large part, subspecies are just points of view. Generally, subspecies correspond with particular populations of a species, separated, for example, geographically, or on the basis of minor characteristics. In general, I do not use subspecies at all, but speak only on the species level, as all subspecies can successfully interbreed anyway. Subspecies are useful primarily by taxonomic specialists, and in some cases, by preservationists (the case of the Mexican wolf comes to mind). >> Friends, Were it only that simple! Species are no more nor less points of view than are subspecific taxa. Taxonomy is only a "filing system" for reference and is fully subject to the whims of the individual systematist. It can be so chaotic that not even a specific designation is easily defensible - one worker's species could be another's subgenus! As to the mythology of species being segregated by fertility barriers - tain't true! Some can produce infertile hybrids when crossed like the mule (horse X donkey) or the tiglon (lion X tiger: I think no fertile offspring have been reported from that cross!) but fully fertile crosses occur between American bison and Old World cattle breeds. The best you as gardeners can do is to follow the recommendations of accepted authorities as they research their specialized fields - their work is usually reviewed by peers. Eventually one school of opinion will become predominant - UNTIL THE NEXT MAJOR STUDY COMES ALONG! Jim Langhammer Royal Oak, MI

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.