I have always believed the strength of (good) science is that it is
self-correcting.  That is, past mistakes are ultimately corrected with new
data.  One of the problems is local bias; that is, professors with a
specific point of view often emphasis that view over others.  Still, in the
long run, the more accurate facts "win" over the less accurate
interpretations.  This is less of a problem with modern data and library
systems than it was even 25 years ago.  What has this to do with the FML?
Good question.
 
Some time ago I stated that ranch mink were NOT domesticated.  This was not
my opinion; I basically paraphrased "domestication" zoology class notes, and
two respected texts.  However, since I have been deeply investigating
domestication issues for ferrets, I have been convinced I was wrong.  In the
last week, I have talked (via phone) to three of the top experts in
domestication.  With the first two, I was able to argue against their
viewpoints, and basically the discussion ended in stalemate.  The third
nailed me however.  She asked, "At what point in time [polecat speciation
history] did the ferret become domesticated?  Wasn't it when the FIRST human
moderated attribute was consistantly reproducable?"
 
Talk about the illumination of a fatal flaw in an argument.  She knew I was
an evolutionary paleozoologist, so she knew I would understand the
implications of the question.  In fact, she said, "I can tell by your
silence that I have scored a major point." So while I was correct in the
knowledge that biologically and behaviorally, the ranch mink and the wild
mink are indistinquishable, because the ranch mink (and fox) has human
moderated color phases that can be consistantly reproduced, they are
considered domesticated.  It is interesting (to me at least) that both sides
of the argument used the same data (coat-color changes) to prove their
respective points; it was the evolutionary implications that convinced me.
I just wanted to set the record straight, even if it appears to be at my
expense.
 
A second thing to report is my insistence on using the epithet "Mustela
furo" to describe the ferret, rather than "Mustela putorius furo".  All
three experts agreed with my argument, and all indicated some work was being
done to change the situation at the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature level.  (I would report their names, but because biologists
read the FML, they asked that I keep them anonymous to prevent premature
criticism).  They suggested that since Linneaus used M.  furo, they have
been domesticated for such a long time, and little exchange of genetic
information occurs between the wild and domesticated populations, the M.
furo epithet is more accurate.
 
If you are referring to the ferret, I would suggest you say something like
"Controversy surrounds the taxonomic nomenclature used to describe the
ferret.  In this paper the term Mustela furo is used throughout, after J.
Clutton-Brock, G.  B.  Corbet, H.  Hemmer and C.  King." (Rewrite to your
own style--I can supply the references if you want them).  The strength in
these references is that they are essentially European, (the native habitat
of the polecat and centuries-old home of the ferret), the first three
authors are heavily involved in domestication issues, and the fourth is an
expert on mustelids.  So now you have stronger evidence (I mean besides "Bob
said...") to call the ferret by its "proper" name, Mustela furo.
 
I want to thank my daughter for typing this in for me, and I also want to
say that the charge that I am blind and crazy is untrue. I AM NOT BLIND! ;-)
 
Bob and the Trece Hurones
[Posted in FML issue 1419]