If One imagines these "overlaps" like lets say a "Boa c. constrictor meets a Boa c. amarali in Brazil and are producing transitional forms with features from both subspecies" than you are far from the truth. This is why I think these terms like "overlaping" are senseless when talking about wild populations.



I believe the truth is that populations of Boa constrictor vary from area to area (we all know that and agree with it). Some of these populations are distict (and thus can be recognised as subspecies by taxonomist for better understanding), some of them are not (and taxonomy CAN NOT HANDLE these populations, because it has just too many limits).



So when One is thinking a little more evolutionary and not as a "boa keeper" when observing boas in the wild, One will see that artifically created terms like "subspecies" lose their sense at some point.



My point was that using terms like "interbreeding", "overlaping", etc. on wild populations are rather misleading than informative, because this is not what actually happens out there.

I hope I could clear this up.

[ Show Entire Thread ]