 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Jwemes on November 16, 1998 at 15:22:05:
In Reply to: Re: The Need for Subspecies posted by ok, how about this on November 16, 1998 at 12:30:13:
Hi All!
There is no purpose in a species/subspecies argument on this forum. This is a forum where hobbyists and the occasional professional get to hash and rehash herp laws.
IMHO, Dave Beamer is correct when he states that the classical definition of a 'subspecies' has no scientific merit for taxonomy. Think about it. What do we call populations of Homo sapiens which exhibit differing skin color? The term is 'race'. It is not a term which has a scientific basis to allow it to be included by taxonomists. BUT we understand and use it to differentiate individuals in the world population who are of the same species, can breed freely, yet have minor distinguishing physical differences.
Dave, the burden that you bear, is greater than that of the hobbyist. In order for subspecies to be taxonomically and legally eliminated, not only will YOU need to get all taxonomists to agree, but YOU then assume the burden of working with all relevant State and Federal agencies, and their respective legislative bodies, to rewrite all current legislation which protects animal and plant taxons which are protected as subspecies.
I don't believe that hobbyists, whether plant or animal, are responsible for the use or misuse of the subspecies concept, since hobbyists tend not to be taxonomists. Taxonomists created the concept. As you are aware from earlier posts, legislators and taxonomists are still using the concept when writing protection legislation.
As hobbyists, we don't write the laws, we seldom get asked our opinions by working groups, we just try to exercise "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" within the laws.
Best of Luck to all of you who continue this thread; I now bow out as it has reached 'reductio ad absurdem' (IMHO ;-) )
Jwemes
