>Subspecific names certainly do have taxonomic status, both in the
>procedural and biological sense. Subspecific names compete with specific
>names for homonymy, among other things. In a biological sense, subspecies
>are important to zoogeographic studies. And for conservation biology they
>can be very important, as the case of the squirrels vs telescope in the
>western USA clearly demonstrated.

Hello,
I agree with you completely regarding naming subspecies.
We need a way to recognize geographically isolated populations of a species
that are different from, but still the same species as, other populations.
These genetically different populations are important to study, as they
show the role of the environment, genetic drift, etc on a species.
For conservation of genetic diversity of a species it is very important to
recognize
and have names for such populations, if for no other reason but the simple
fact that
people can talk about and relate to a NAMED thing far more easily than one
that has no
name. The science of zoogeography would be far more difficult if we didn't
name such
populations.
(Aside: The ancient egyptians believed that as long as ones name was spoken,
the person never really died, but as soon as no-one spoke their name they were
were forgotten and ceased to exist. Same with populations of endangered
species?)

Peter Egerton, Vancouver, Canada
Collector of worldwide Mollusca