to read, Thomas. I mean no disrespect, here, but it's more than apparent that you've got some anti-intellectual sentiment which is boiling to the top of your posts. I’ve sat back and read numerous insulting and derogatory remarks involving various forms of science- and scientist-bashing, and feel compelled to speak up and say something. As a professional “scientist” (to ‘lump’…), I deal with stereotypes and misconceptions on a daily basis.



I enjoyed your article in REPTILES, and congratulated you on the write-up, but, I’ve had enough of this. There are a number of things I want to address, but in view of my time limits, I’ve chosen to pick out just a few.



First, you’re grossly misunderstanding the roll of subspecific designation. A subspecies is named when a segment (= population) of a given species has fairly similar and geographically cohesive characteristics (be they morphological or biochemical) which can be used to differentiate them from other such segments within the species. A subspecies is NOT a discrete reproductive unit, and freely intergrades with neighboring populations. These “intergrades” result from non-differentiation (often due to transitional habitat and the lack of directional selection for a particular suite of characters), and are generally a phenotypic blend between the “pure” subspecies on either side. Intergrades of this type are referred to as “primary intergrades”. Secondary intergradation is the term applied when 2 populations which have been allopatric are reunited, and begin to interbreed and exchange genetic material. This is a possible explanation for “temporalis” along the coastal plain of eastern North America.



Second, the difference between “splitters” and “lumpers” in taxonomy is mostly semantic. The utility of naming populations geographically cohesive characteristics is the drive behind “splitting”, while the realism of recognizing only the species as a discrete unit is the drive behind “lumping”. There’s much middle ground, here, and you’re ignoring that. What we’re labeling with subspecific epithets may or may not be a distinct evolutionary unit. Those that are diverging from the genetic “whole” of the species are said to be in the process of insipient speciation.



As for our captive animals being dead to the wild… well, I suppose that’s the view some folks have. I’d say that the introduction of Python molurus and numerous other species in FL and the prevalence of escaped Colubrids throughout their native ranges in NA speak strongly to the contrary… I won’t even touch on the fact that there are other segments of the herp-keeping hobby which are involved in species survival and reintroduction programs, in spite of what some of the outspoken “hybridizers” (see, I can lump, too…) may preach.



-Cole Grover

[ Show Entire Thread ]