[Taxacom] Neanderthals a species?
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sat Jul 3 18:24:50 CDT 2010
Thanks for the clarification. I don't disagree with anything you say. The
key word in my question was "fundamentally", and I was most interested in
your all-caps "RATHER", so you have addressed both, and we seem to be in
agreement (on both).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 8:11 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Neanderthals a species?
> Hi Rich,
> Yes, I tend to disparage (or otherwise discourage)
> excessive splitting at the species level, so that was the
> reason for "RATHER" in all-caps. I would say that
> subspeciation and speciation are different, but not
> necessarily "fundamentally" different. I guess it might
> depend on the taxon involved. Polyploid speciation (common in
> plants) happens so quickly that the subspeciation step is
> totally skipped. When the subspeciation event is a small
> founder population (even as small as a single pregnant
> female), it speeds down the road to speciation relatively
> quickly (but not instanteously as in polyploidy).
> Then there are the generally slower forms of subspeciation
> that involve larger populations diverging from one another.
> So there is certainly a
> vast continuum of different rates at which speciation occurs.
> Except for the possible exception of polyploidy (where
> one could perhaps argue that subspeciation and speciation are
> merged into a single step), I would say that subspeciation
> and speciation are different, but I would be reluctant to say
> "fundamentally" different. One could open a semantic can of
> worms over a word like that, but subspeciation is certainly a
> far more common and easy step for a population to take (but I
> guess that wouldn't count as a "fundamental" difference).
> Anyway, I obviously do not think that Neanderthals made the
> difficult step of speciation. They just got swamped by waves
> of the more "modern"
> Richard Pyle wrote:
> I wonder if you could clarify something. You wrote:
> These examples show how too many biologists still
> fail to recognize just how difficult speciation actually is
> and too often jump to the conclusion that differences
> (morphological, genetic, or even behavioral) indicate
> speciation RATHER than subspeciation.
> It sounds (by use of the all-caps "RATHER") that you see
> the process of speciation being fundamentally different from
> the process of subspeciation. Is that an accurate
> interpretation of your views? Or, do you see speciation and
> subspeciation as different (perhaps overlapping) regions
> along a continuum of processes of isolation and divergence
> that exist among extant populations? (If you only emphasized
> "RATHER" as a way of disparaging excessive splitting at the
> species level -- then we are of like-mind on this point.) Aloha, Rich
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> either of these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom