On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:01:42 -0700, ejpower <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
 
>Are subspecies of inferior rank? A mollusc is described/authored today
>and another is described/authored tomorrow as a subspecies of the first.
>If it was the other way around it is because of time tagging, luck or
>whatever for the particular mollusc being the nominate species. Yet when
>species - subspecies are being discussed in terms of populations an "out
>of the way" smaller population tagged as a subspecies "seems" to be
>addressed as of inferior rank ie a deviation from the norm, the norm
>being the major population.
 
Nope. One can not tag any significance to the name of a subspecies
other than it being the _name_ of the subspecies. Let's take the
gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) (*) as an example. The lowland gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla gorilla) is just the subspecies gorilla of the
species Gorilla gorilla while the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla
beringei) is just the subspecies beringei of the species Gorilla
gorilla. There's nothing more to it. It cannot be stated that Gorilla
gorilla gorilla is the norm and Gorilla gorilla beringei is the
deviation. One can not make assumptions about "which one was there
first" by looking at he name. They are merely two different
appearances of equal rank in which the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla)
reveals itself to us as a species.
 
>At least this seems to be the connotation.
>I vote to delete the subspecies title and go with forms or varieties
>(though not legal with the ICZN). It is only fair to the poor molluscs.
 
I do not agree. Forms or varieties are used to point out variation
within populations whereas subspecies denote differences between
(groups of) populations.
 
>Didnt EO Wilson try this once and got shot down?
 
Now, who is ... Ah well, never mind.
 
 
Regards,
Arjan
 
(*) The gorilla is a big ape, not a mollusc.