It is hard to even get respected scientists to agree on what constitutes the
total list of species in a genus, never mind subspecies.
If we humans decide that the criteria are entirely genetic then maybe the future
will hold better tools, but I suspect that we will just have different types of
grey areas to argue about.
It has been suggested from time to time that really serious collectors who know
their stuff will always know exactly what to call a thing based on an assessment
of all available publications.  This involves:
1. knowing all of the literature
2. being able to judge who is right and who is wrong which cannot really be done
anyway.
3.  Some animals may be classed according to characteristics that are not
usually available to shell collectors, so how could you judge unless you had
access to living specimens and could see the defining characteristics
4.  there is even disagreement among experts as to what the defining
characteristics should be.  It is somewhat arbitrary.  How could a lay person
judge 'correctly' whether these are good characteristics or not?  A lay person
could certainly draw conclusions, and they could be good ones, but they are just
his conclusions for his own purposes and they may be even better than another
so-called experts.
5.  In paleontology it even comes down to knowing the reputation of the person
who is published.  Not naming names but there is knowledge in paleo circles that
any work on Himalayan fossils based upon the published work of a certain person
or his students could be discarded as frauds.  This is extreme, but it happens.
I think you have to pick your 'camp' and be a lumper or a splitter or somewhere
in between, or you can be a maverick and come up with your own criteria!


rosesea wrote:

> Miss Tall One:
>
> I join in with your question.  I've often wondered who decides a "new"
> species or genus or whatever is truly new and is validly added to the list
> of inhabitants of this earth.  Is it a whim?  I surely hope not.
>
> RoseSea standing with the Tall One
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Betty Jean Piech <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 11:08 AM
> Subject: What constitutes a subspecies?
>
> > Dear Conch-Lers -
> >
> > I did not expect any rave notices about my recent contribution regarding
> > various cymatium species (nor did it deserve any),  but I was hoping at
> > least one person (hopefully more)  would  give me his thoughts as to what
> > constitutes a valid species as compared to a geographical subspecies.  Is
> > it simply a matter of degree?  Or merely at the whim of the describer?  Or
> > is that an unanswerable question?
> >
> > Betty Jean, The Tall One
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________
> NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet.  Shouldn't you?
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html