Ok, I know what you are all thinking. Bob hasn't answered much mail in the
last few days, not many smark aleck remarks either. Maybe he's depressed
and hiding in a motel. Nope, just flew out and rescued my cute red car from
the evil Fordian demons of Tennessee. Was stared at by four guys with
shaved heads and a gunrack in their pickup. Actually, I was driving with my
hair out of the 'tail, and some yahoo leaned out of the passenger side
window to flirt with me. Well, until he saw the gorgeous hair was on an
ugly guy. All four of God's proof of evolution looked as if they suddenly
discovered an ant farm in their tight whites. Made my entire trip. Made it
back in time to attend my 8:30 class today as well. The car flies. I will
get to the ton or so email ASAP.
Q: "I finally got through your skunk posts and almost had to buy a
dictionary, but I was wondering if the skunks and mustelids are so close
as you say, then how can we say ferrets are not polecats?"
A: Easy. Open your mouth and say "ferrets are not polecats." That simple.
Actually, this is a very intelligent question, and one that the vast
majority of biologists/zoologists are grappling with, or should be. The
issue at stake is really not what a species is, nor issues of priority or
nomenclature. The problem is a lack of understanding of domestication as
it relates to zoology. Face it, most zoologists never study domesticated
animals, if they even think about them , so coming up with a critical
definition of a domesticated animal has never been a priority. Also, most
definitions of a species are based on it's morphology rather than its
genetics, so animals that are closely related and look very similar are
often called by the same species binominal, like ferrets and polecats, while
similarly-related animals that look different are given different names,
like wolves and dogs. This is a problem at the basic-philosophical level of
the science, and I won't go into it here, but it relates to problems in how
to classify things and separating one thing from another.
A basic question is, how much difference does there need to be for something
to be considered different? If you used pens as an example, you might say a
pen was a long cylindrical object containing ink. Does that mean my
monkey-, fish- or bone-shaped pens are not pens? What about a quill? It
doesn't have ink; is it still a pen? In the past, zoologists have basically
made this distinction on an individual basis for each animal, which means
some animals are considered subspecies, even though there is more difference
than found between other animals which are considered separate species. It
simply depends on the investigator, and has been referred to as the
spliters/lumpers debate. It is profound problem in zoology, as well as in
paleontology and archaeology.
I think this is starting to change. In the last few months, at least four
papers have been published in the _Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature_
concerning the naming of domesticated animals and their wild kin. This is
for a variety of reasons, but most are of a zooarchaeological or
conservational or endangered species agenda. Also, as the skunk paper
illustrates, biologists are increasingly turning to genetics to answer
questions of taxonomy; that is, how to animals relate to each other.
Conservationists are pushing the issue because they want to protect animals
that have a common domesticated form but an endangered wild form, such as
some wild sheep and goats and their domesticated counterparts, as well as
other animals in a similar situation. Zooarchaeologists are pushing the
issue because they are acutely aware that the archaeological record contains
both wild and domesticated forms, and they want to be able to define the
difference between them. Of course, we ferret owners are interested because
we want to be able to say ferrets are not polecats.
See the next post for a continuation of this subject.
Bob C and the 21 Furits
[Posted in FML issue 2056]
|
