>>I need more time to digest that paper, not that I will ever understand that mtDNA work! However, I do see one huge glaring omission. Not a single sampled specimen from Mexico! How could he expect that work speak for the specimens he has included in Mexico when he didn't include them in the samples??
>>
>>Forky

Good point about Mexican specimens. I'm not sure any literature I've read included Mex. specimens. If you include Mexico in the range of the Great Plains rat, the range is huge, certainly enough space for two subs, northern and southern form, even though the intergrade zone is very wide. I gotta believe there's two ssps there.

Of course, the layman can't ever do genetic testing himself, so we rely on the pros. But how strong is their evidence? Heck, they can't even agree amongst themselves, one of the reasons scientific names are changing all the time. And I don't care how much lab testing they've done, if two subspecies are intergrading, then they're part of the same species.

In cases where the population is isolated from other populations, then we have to guess how strong the relationship is with the parent species. If real strong then maybe the isolated pop. isn't even a subspecies, like with the western "intermontana" rats. If it's a distant relationship then maybe the isolated pop. is a distinct species, like the Western and Eastern fox snakes. I can't believe that "intermontana" gets no designation and "gloydi" gets species status. Some workers just don't want any subspecies at all.

TC

[ Show Entire Thread ]