The Taxonomy Thread

Anyone know why no one has bothered looking at the orca ecotypes? Some of them are so different that they could technically be their own subspecies or even species.

And what about king cobras? Some localities are very different that many could consider them separate (I've read that their venom is even unique from one another). As a matter of fact, shouldn't some localities of various species be considered separate (As in the case of the Hog Island boa which is considered Boa constrictor imperator)?

And can I also point out that the monitor lizards are literally just tossed into Varanus despite the huge diversity and differences?
 
Monitors are usually not split because V. is monophyletic. Subgenera are recognised it's OK to use those. If you talk about genus Odatria etc people will know what you are talking about. Taxa even at the same "rank" are not equivalent: dinosaur genera differ less than species of Varanus, Canis, Homo. (PDOW) Monitor lizards are at an extreme end.
 
SealPup said:
Monitors are usually not split because V. is monophyletic. Subgenera are recognised it's OK to use those. If you talk about genus Odatria etc people will know what you are talking about. Taxa even at the same "rank" are not equivalent: dinosaur genera differ less than species of Varanus, Canis, Homo. (PDOW) Monitor lizards are at an extreme end.
Click to expand...
Interesting, though I'll probably stick to my subgenera :P
 
I've got a random question, and I think this is the best place to propose it. I recently bought a book that references a "Perry River white-fronted goose." Does anyone know what this is? It is mentioned separately from snow geese, Ross' geese, blue geese (snow goose color morph I think), and lesser snow geese, so I assume it is not one of those. Any thoughts?
 
jayjds2 said:
,,,,,,I recently bought a book that references a "Perry River white-fronted goose." Does anyone know what this is? It is mentioned separately from snow geese, Ross' geese, blue geese (snow goose color morph I think), and lesser snow geese, so I assume it is not one of those. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

This would be greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons.

The link below describes an expedition during which Perry River white-fronted geese were captured for the Wildfowl Trust.

http://wildfowl.wwt.org.uk/index.php/wildfowl/article/viewFile/2521/1632
 
Proposed changes in bat taxonomy:

Acta Chiropterologica 19(1):1-18. 2017
'Towards Navigating the Minotaur's Labyrinth: Cryptic Diversity and Taxonomic Revision within the Speciose Genus Hipposideros (Hipposideridae)'

Abstract: Recent molecular evidence has shown that the largest genus of the family Hipposideridae, Hipposideros, is paraphyletic with respect to H. commersonii sensu lato and H. vittatus, both belonging to a species complex referred to as the commersonii group. The taxonomic issues at the generic level of certain species of Hipposideros remain unresolved in part related to insufficient material in previous molecular studies. Herein, we expand sampling of the commersonii group and include H. commersonii sensu stricto from its type locality, Madagascar. Our phylogenetic analysis revealed that the commersonii group forms a highly supported monophyletic clade with H. cyclops, which is sister taxa to Aselliscus and Coelops. A combination of phylogenetic and comparative morphological analyses, as well as divergence time estimates, were used to provide compelling evidence to support the placement of the clade containing the commersonii group and that with H. cyclops in two resurrected genera, Macronycteris and Doryrhina, respectively. Divergence time estimates indicated that Macronycteris and Doryrhina diverged 19 mya and separated from Coelops and Aselliscus in the Oligocene, about 31 mya. The commersonii group underwent a rapid radiation as recently as 3 mya likely in response to favourable climatic conditions during the Late Pliocene in Africa. Phylogenetic analysis of Cyt-b could not resolve relationships within this morphologically conserved complex. Further sampling is necessary to fully elucidate the evolutionary history of Doryrhina. Given that cryptic species are widespread among bats, including within the genus Hipposideros, this study highlights the shortcomings of current chiropteran taxonomy to describe hidden diversity.
 
Giant Panda said:
Personally, I think any effort to enforce a Grand Unified Species Concept across the Life Sciences is a fool's errand. However, I don't disagree with these proposals:

Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation
Click to expand...

The C in IOC stands for Congress?! I never knew that!

Although I agree that a single species concept across everything would be ineffective, I think that a unifying species concept within taxa would be effective to the level of a class.
 
LaughingDove said:
The C in IOC stands for Congress?! I never knew that!

Although I agree that a single species concept across everything would be ineffective, I think that a unifying species concept within taxa would be effective to the level of a class.
Click to expand...
There are no classes only clades, and there are no objective taxa only populations. Either two populations are noticeably different in a significant way (where signifixant and noticeably are weasel words) or they are not. The differences will be real regardless of wether humans label them or not. Labels are not real. After considering the underlying philosophy and understanding how much role hybridisation plays in evolution and how fuzzy species boundaries are, it feels irrelevant nowadays.

Remember the silliness about how there are only 2 ssp of lion? As though the local diversity of lions is somehow worthless below the ssp level?
 
SealPup said:
There are no classes only clades, and there are no objective taxa only populations. Either two populations are noticeably different in a significant way (where signifixant and noticeably are weasel words) or they are not. The differences will be real regardless of wether humans label them or not. Labels are not real. After considering the underlying philosophy and understanding how much role hybridisation plays in evolution and how fuzzy species boundaries are, it feels irrelevant nowadays.

Remember the silliness about how there are only 2 ssp of lion? As though the local diversity of lions is somehow worthless below the ssp level?
Click to expand...

Well then you can just think about everything in terms of Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and ignore taxonomy entirely. In terms of conservation, that's probably the ideal if possible.

However that doesn't make taxonomy pointless if it is treated as being somewhat subjective and useful/interesting as a way of considering the evolutionary history of species. Just because labels are not real outside of what humans have created in science and society doesn't make them pointless. Pretty much all of science is humans trying identify and put labels on things that probably shouldn't really be categorised and labelled but it's the only method we have for understanding the universe so in my opinion we just need to embrace the fact that everything in science and in the universe is made up of, as you put it, fuzzy boundaries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LaughingDove said:
Well then you can just think about everything in terms of Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and ignore taxonomy entirely. In terms of conservation, that's probably the ideal if possible.

However that doesn't make taxonomy pointless if it is treated as being somewhat subjective and useful/interesting as a way of considering the evolutionary history of species. Just because labels are not real outside of what humans have created in science and society doesn't make them pointless. Pretty much all of science is humans trying identify and put labels on things that probably shouldn't really be categorised and labelled but it's the only method we have for understanding the universe so in my opinion we just need to embrace the fact that everything in science and in the universe is made up of, as you put it, fuzzy boundaries.
Click to expand...
All the same the last question about the lions is the important part what I wrote: if something is not distinct enough to be singled out by some supposedly objective standard, such as a computer algorhythm, does it still have value? I think this kind of thinking is dangerous if it can justify local extinctions, and doesn't consider how evolution works.
 
SealPup said:
All the same the last question about the lions is the important part what I wrote: if something is not distinct enough to be singled out by some supposedly objective standard, such as a computer algorhythm, does it still have value? I think this kind of thinking is dangerous if it can justify local extinctions, and doesn't consider how evolution works.
Click to expand...

And that's why I said that ideally conservation would be based on conserving all Evolutionarily Significant Units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top