In Defense of the Subspecies

Abstract

T HE recent literature contains articles in which the main arguments are against the preservation of the category of the subspecies, its trinomial and its preservation under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. Two papers in particular are of interest to me, because Wilson and Brown (1953, pp. 102-103), used my work as an example, and in the other Burt (1954, p. 99), referred to me by inference because by naming subspecies of Thomomys bottae I am responsible for approximately ten per cent of our most horrible example of misuse of the subspecies in mammalogy. Naturally, when my studies and their results are so diametrically opposed to the thinking of others, is time for reevaluation and critical study of my position and philosophies. This necessitates a careful analysis of the facts and concepts on both sides of the problem. At the outset, I might say that I am a student of animals, not categories. I care not what populations are called, or how they are discussed, providing the most meaningful system is employed. I consider the greatest worth of the subspecies to be its use as a cornerstone in the foundation of the study of evolution. It is the most important tool that students of evolution have from the viewpoint of geographic variation and distribution, in attempting to contribute to the understanding of what happens to animals at the level of the infraspecific categories. Furthermore, the use of the subspecies is not necessary or perhaps even meaningful to students of variation who have other aims in their studies. The authors mentioned above agree that the formal subspecies should be relegated into obsolescence or even abandoned, because to them contributes nothing to the understanding of the animals in question that cannot better be obtained by simpler, less involved means. Furthermore, they consider that the increased use of the trinomial, with its entailed synonymies and realignments, will ultimately add up to total confusion, and that is incapable of adequately expressing the purposes for which is currently employed. Careful reading of the above articles will inform the reader that the authors consider the major worth of the subspecies to be only that of establishing the extent, degree, and limits of geographical variation. Burt, in commenting upon the 150 subspecies of Thomomys bottae asked what this showed of biological importance, and commented it shows that Thomomys bottae is highly variable throughout its range. To me, this is only one of the contributions of the study of subspecies and is far from the most important. Nowhere did I find criticisms directed against the use of the subspecies with reference to its values as concerns the explanation of rates, degrees and significances of variation. I agree, that for the limited usage they apparently purport to make of the study of variation, they do not require the subspecies and its trinomial nomenclature. Wilson and Brown propose as a substitute for the subspecies and its trinomial that merely the species name be retained followed by, a local vernacular geographic name as a citation for the geographically-varied population. Likewise, Burt would retain only the species name but would express morphological variation by means of symbolic maps. I fail to see where the employment of vernacular names for localities of occurrence of populations would simplify or adequately resolve the problem. I can readily appreciate how could lead to far greater inaccuracies and considerably more involvement. It could not obviate