Comments on: Conservative Media Attacks New Species Discoveries

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:18:40 +0000

Well, taxonomy is something of a mess, and frankly it always has been. There were, at one point, an alleged 86 species of brown bears in North America. Now there is one, with four subspecies.
Defining a species, whether one relies on morphology, the biological species concept, DNA, or some mix of these, is subjective. It is nonetheless necessary. If we say all bears are the same, then we can lose grizzlies or polars or whatever and assume there’s no meaningful loss of diversity. Clearly, it’s not so.

What does this mean? We must define species as well as we can, accepting that experts disagree and some calls are going to be wrong. Science has just got to muddle through.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 22 May 2007 14:00:43 +0000

I think ranatemporaria makes a good point but I would add that the concept of species is a functional one and therefore inevitably subject to interpretation by both the one who chooses it as appropriate and by the listener. It’s not just about how different one set of genes is from the other, as it must function also. The idealized situation as portrayed in the modern standard model ignores an awful lot of stuff about which we’re just beginning to gain some understanding. i.e.: horizontal gene transfer, the role of virus, genetic mosaics and possible quantum electromagnetic effects.

I think the cautionary aspect of the article in The Economist should be that human scaled constructions, both in the real and abstract, whether we’re talking about the size of a garden or the International Monetary Fund reflects how we understand the system to work, and sure enough, it DOES work by most definition, at least for a while…but not likely to work very well or in an organic and coordinated fashion as does nature whose laws are so flexible and yet simultaneously immutable and unavoidable.

PS…nice MySpace tunes, ranatemporaneous.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:42:15 +0000

I find it very interesting that the 2 newspapers mentioned have names and history of dealing with money. I also found it interesting that it is mentioned what could happen to conservation if these practices continue. I will admit that I have noticed the dividing of species myself, but with the advancements we have in dna and such things, we can more easily see slight differences between species, ones that aren’t necessarily noticeable to the naked eye. But then I guess that does bring up an important question as to “How do scientists determine separate species, when they look almost identical?”

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:04:35 +0000

Bob,
Unfortunately you have a similar problem with DNA analysis in that ultimately it is subjective human decision as to exactly how much genetic divergence is required to constitute re-classification (a new species). Even con-specifics, siblings and offspring have altered DNA, hence DNA recognition in crimes. The amount of variance increases, mostly, with time since initial divergence, despite this in theory a species divided into separate populations over many thousands of years could not diverge “enough”, to be genetically different species.

Jodzilla -
The point about conservation is that if you have a species with a population of 10,000, and is deemed sustainable, if you then split this into 10 different subspecies you may be left with 10 separate “endangered” sub species! Weather this is the right or wrong thing to do is a matter of debate.

By: DWA

DWA — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:54:29 +0000

I’m tired of physicists saying Meldrum’s a quack, and suits saying taxonomy’s getting it wrong.

What ever happened to what our moms told us?

Mind your OWN business!

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:03:59 +0000

Let’s take a look at the status of whitetail deer as to its subspecies. 38 are recognized between Canada and the tip of South America. Thirty of which are North American, but hold it one group states that only 16 subspecies are NA. Which is it, the consolidators or the splitters. I say let the DNA decide what constitutes a species or a subspecies.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Sun, 20 May 2007 14:30:23 +0000

This is NOT a message board. This area is for comments about the topic of the blog - new species, subspecies, taxonomy, and those subjects mentioned in the blog.

Remarks on global warming and your own politics will be deleted.

Thank you for staying on topic.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 20 May 2007 10:01:40 +0000

I don’t really see the new techniques of discerning differences in species as being a bad thing at all, and personally view it as a helpful way to more accurately catalogue the great biodiversity of life on Earth. By discerning the differences between animals that are superficially similar, we are really just categorizing these creatures in more detail. Taxonomy is a tricky thing and there can be debates about what constitutes a new species, but I think any technology that can help us better discern the genetic differences between animals is a good think towards furthering our understanding of the creatures we share this planet with. I think the whole process of genetic analysis of species is fascinating and I see nothing but progress here.

By: DavidFredSneakers

DavidFredSneakers — Sun, 20 May 2007 08:09:31 +0000

"...disparagingly referred to as “charismatic megafauna” — species that the public cares about (apes, not rodents)."

Funny, I seem to remember the Laotian Rock Rat causing quite a stir.

I think that the conservation of the our fellow species on this planet is increasingly becoming a bipartisan concern. Our need for mantaining the earths biodiversity is undisputed, articles like this are truly in the "Dark Ages."

Thankfully, I think that this point of view is truly in the minority.

By: Daniel Loxton

Daniel Loxton — Sun, 20 May 2007 06:05:26 +0000

Hey, Loren, that’s a useful blog entry. I think your commentary is quite correct.