Paul Monfils wrote:
[snip]
A couple of weeks back there was a Conch-L discussion concerning the
question whether subspecies necessarily have to be geographically
isolated, and the prevailing opinion seemed to be that they do.
However, the above example appears to be a case where subspecies are
isolated not geographically but temporally.  [a] Are there any ICZN rules
governing such situations?  [b] Is this a common practice?  [c] Would it be
reasonable to say that many recent fossil forms which resemble extant
forms should  be described as subspecies, rather than distinct
species?  [d] Does the nominate species have to be the "older" (extinct)
form (as in the case above)?  [e] What if the living form is named first?
 [f] Can a fossil form that preceded it be named as a subspecies of an
extant species?
 
Answers:
(a) No. In fact, the ICZN does not single out fossils for special treatment
in most cases.
(b) Temporally defined subspecies are abundant in paleontology, and not
just used by taxonomists. Subspecies are critically important to
biostratigraphers, who make these fine distinctions in order to discern the
ages of strata.
(c) Yes, certainly. There are many examples from the Pliocene-Pleistocene
beds in and near Sarasota, Florida.
(d) No, it makes no difference. In practice, the living subspecies was
usually named first, but it doesn't matter and there are examples of both.
The rule of priority applies only to date of publication.
(e) Then the living form is the name-bearer of that species.
(f) Yes.
 
I'm back from field work in Sylacauga, Alabama, where a meteor fell and hit
a woman in the 1950's. She survived to sue her landlord over ownership of
the stone (it hit the roof first and bounced around the room before hitting
her on the thigh as she lay sleeping on a couch). And the meteorite is now
on display a few hundred feet away from me in the Alabama Museum of Natural
History.
 
Hope you enjoyed the Leonids, everybody!
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama