![]() | market - home |
![]() |
![]() |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Dave Beamer on November 10, 1998 at 23:19:02:
In Reply to: Re: The Need for Subspecies posted by RP on November 10, 1998 at 22:31:29:
I believe all state lists should contain taxonomic units that reflect discovered evolutionary entities. Since subspecies can't be discovered I can see absolutely no reason to list them. When subspecies are requested to be listed it is under the apparent assumption that they are a taxonomic unit. They are clearly not a taxonomic unit and therefore are precluded from being listed. If state lists are not to be based on taxonomic units what are they to be comprised of? I am not sure how you could protect a species but not intend to protect the entire species. I can state that some populations are protected in a state while others are not. The plainbelly water snake has recently been added to the federal ESA list. Populations in the northeast section of IN are federally threatened while those in the SW corner are not. These would even be the same "subspecies". There is a trend towards managing populations and ecosystems today rather than wasting time with clinal variation like in the old days. This listing also had a lot to do with the subspecies debate. As there was really no discrete taxonomic unit to protect (plainbellies have a large range and only some populations were seriously threatened) it was decided to protect the declining populations only.
Dave Beamer
Subject:
Comments:
Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
|
|
|
|