Posted by:
Rtdunham
at Mon Sep 5 12:02:34 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Rtdunham ]
>> ...they are the same snakes, yet, there is little progress to the actual understanding that makes these snakes what they are. Their social/biological/ecologicial structures. What makes them tick? what allows them to survive in the enviornment, what keeps them the same or what makes them change? Their real behaviors, etc.
>>
>> All in all, you call call them Joe, or Moe, or Harry, or Larry, or James or Jamie, what matters is we call them(to dinner) What I don't understand is, why don't we know what makes them those different names?
Frank,
The social structures and the behavior in the wild that you mention relate to what we'd consider sociology or cultural and social anthropology, in the study of Joe, Moe and Harry, all humans. Those things relate to behavior of the same species--behavior that makes individuals or groups so very different. Sure, getula may inhabit different kinds of environs in parts of its range; the obsoleta group of elaphe may achieve different sizes or have differing target foods in part of its range, etc. So observations in captivity but especially field observations may provide insight into that behavior. It seems to me the speciation studies are efforts to group not by behavior but by evolutionary relationships, biological stuff, which you mention in with the sociological/behavioral/field observation comments, but seem to have little regard for. The DNA guys show us relationships in humans...there are some fascinating studies of modern groups and their origins, for example, and i suspect they'll do the same with the rest of the animal world. I agree completely with your observations about the importance of field work, behavioral studies, etc., and agree that in many ways they define the "character", if you will, of different groups of "the same" animal. But i don't think an appreciation for that aspect of an animal should diminish an appreciation for the biological/evolutionary/speciation studies, either. Your enthusiasm for the former is evidenbt and respected. I don't think you've explained sufficiently why the other isn't important (or you have and i just haven't gotten it, or you don't really feel that way but are taking a somewhat extremist opinion to stress the part that you have more interest in). Bottom line, there's no reason not to continue trying to improve on what we know about animals and their relationships to one another, regardless of what "names" were once applied to them. No reason to keep calling something a "mugwamper" or whatever, if as our science becomes better, we realize that people were using the term to describe to different critters. Does that make any sense? Is there a middle road here for us all?
terry
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Yep. - Rtdunham, Mon Sep 5 12:02:34 2005
.jpg "Click to visit PACNWRS")