 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by W. Khan on November 10, 1998 at 17:26:18:
In Reply to: Re: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines posted by Dave Beamer on November 09, 1998 at 23:47:29:
Same animal with the same evolutionary fate? Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't subspecies once thought of as incipient species, and, by definition, possessing divergent evolutionary fates? I agree with you that many subspecies are likely artifacts, resulting from arbitrary choice of distinguishing traits. Taxonomic revision is ongoing, and will continue as scientists apply newer technologies in discovering distinguishing characteristics. However, while such philosophical musing is entertaining, I don't think it is urgently relevant to the major issues at hand. Regardless of your opinions concerning the validity of subspecies, the fact remains that they, for the time being, exist. I believe the subspecies concept has some place in wildlife management. Lets take the L. getulus complex as example. You say getulus ssp. are invalid, correct? What if, for arguments sake, there were only 100 L. g. californiae left in the world (will never happen, thanks to herpetoculture!), but hundreds-of-thousands of L. g. getulus. Would you be reluctant to consider protective measures for californiae because of the nominate form's abundance? Or would you restrict collection and/or captivity of all L g. ssp.? Or perhaps you would do nothing at all? All of the above options, in my opinion, represent poor management of a wildlife resource. Ignoring subspecies in writing herp legislation is something akin to removing fingers from a surgeon's hand - the power of fine manipulation is lost, and the quality of work is necessarily compromised.
Concerning knowledge of herpetoculturists vs. academicians - I think it is futile and somewhat immature to debate in detail, being similar to a "mine is bigger than yours"argument. First of all, there is much overlap between the two groups. Second, knowledge is an amorphous entity, and unlike some things, does not easily lend itself to meaningful quantitation. Perhaps you are interpreting my comments about knowledge in too concrete a way. My thoughts on this subject are this: 1) Knowledge is acquired through learning. 2) Colleges and universities, while wonderful institutions of learning (I can attest firsthand, having had the privelege(?) of attending both graduate and medical school), do not hold a monopoly on learning. 3) It is my experience that working in a particular discipline for a period of time is the best way to become "expert" in that discipline. Doctors, for example, are largely incompetent physicians at the time of graduation from medical school. It is only through intense work and experiences during residency that they gain competency. Therefore, I submit that herpetoculturists that have worked intensively and successfully with these animals for such long periods must certainly possess a body of knowledge not shared by any other group on the planet (unless herp'culturists are slobbering idiots, and incapable of learning!). Scientists undoubtedly make valuable contributions to the fund of knowledge. Herpetoculturists do also, but in a different flavor. While it is certainly important to know when the mite jumps on subocularis, it is equally important to know how to reproduce subocularis in captivity.
Sorry about accusing you of suggesting that herpetoculturists need to generate original data about wild populations. Just an impression I got from your post.
I am aware of the existence of metapopulation data that you mention concerning population dynamics. I would appreciate it if you would give me the references for the studies specifically concerning the relationship between herpetoculture and wild populations.
In closing, I feel all available facts need to be placed on the table and considered before effective legislation can be outlined. If the facts are unknown, some effort should be made to obtain them.
W. Khan
