A few people asked for a specific paper that (1) supports ferrets as being
Mustela furo rather than Mustela putorius furo, (2) discusses the critera
that defines domesticates, and (3) illustrates the controversy surrounding
the domestication issue in regards to taxonomists.  (Actually, it was it
was seven requests distilled to the above).  Ok, try:
 
Colin P. Groves "On the nomenclature of domestic animals" 1995 Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2):137-141.
 
This is a short and easy to read paper that clearly illustrates some of the
problems I've been discussing for the last six months--at least from the
viewpoint of taxonomic nomenclature.  If you are well practiced "speaking
biologica" you will have no problems; if not, a dictionary will help in a
few places.
 
The only point of contention I have with the paper is the assumption that
the proven ancestor of the domesticated ferret is the European polecat.
While I agree this is probably the case, I still contend the association is
unproven (1) because the archaeological/paleontological evidence is lacking
(try nonexistant), and (2) because although the ferret's closest
extant-species relative is the European polecat, that isn't proof that an
extinct species couldn't have been the ancestor.
 
This paper also supplies evidence to my earlier contention that no one is
really sure if the animals in New Zealand are feral domesticated ferrets,
European polecats, or hybrids.  My contention is they must be hybrids of one
degree or another, because it is improbable that they would not interbreed.
According to Groves (and references contained within the paper) without
human intervention, the two groups would readily merge into one.  Since both
domesticated ferrets and European polecats were released on New Zealand, any
survivors would have interbred, meaning their offspring (virtually all feral
fitch on the island) would be domesticated- wild hybrids; technically NOT
domesticated ferrets.
 
The paper also points out a great inconsistancy in taxonomic nomenclature:
the rules are applied differently to different species.  For example: the
dog, cat, and ferret (and at least 15 other species) were named PRIOR to the
naming of the wild species (if it was known or clear).  If they are the same
species, then the rules of priority should follow, and the wild animal
should take its name from the prior-named domesticate.  As far as I can
tell, in all but one case, the two names remain, leaving the impression of
two separate species (i.e., Canis lupus and Canis familiaris, Felis
silvestris and Felis catus, Equus caballus and Equus ferus, etc).  The
ferret is an exception; not only did the "two species" become one, but they
took the younger name (Mustela putorius) rather than the older one (remember
the rules of priority?  They didn't...).  While taxonomists and those who
deal with species concepts generally understand what is going on, it is not
clear to most, and the flaws become exploitable and damaging by the
ethically-challenged, like those green-shirted neo/bio-nazi bumbling
Californian political-biologists who think Ernst Meyer makes wieners and
Darwin is an Australian city.  I swear that if brains were cotton, they
wouldn't have enough to make a maxi-pad for a flea.  (hey, what an idea for
a thread...the CFG are so dumb that (supply your own joke here).  We can
collect them and e-mail them to Pete Wilson, and say "this is what the rest
of the nation thinks of your bureauocratic biologists, and why we live in
other states....")
 
So, go ahead and call the ferret "Mustela furo." What are they gonna do?
Take away your birthday?  (They can take away mine anytime they like...)
Tell them you'll get your act together as soon as they do.
 
Bob and the 13 Height-Challenged Length-Advantaged Politically Incorrect
European Politicobiologist Haters.
 
PS: Why are the bio-nazis in the CFG called "Game Wardens?"  Because they
play games with the truth, and they love to throw people in jail....
[Posted in FML issue 1509]