Thanks once again to my FML Angel who forwarded this question to my
super top-secret science email address. The question forwarded was a
paraphrase and not a direct quote from the FML, so hopefully I will not
go off onto an unnecessary tangent. Ok, I do that all the time, so let
me rephrase that: hopefully I will answer the original question. Since
I am not caught up on current FMLs, I apologize if I have duplicated
anyone's answer.

As I understand the question, it was "What is the lineage of the
domesticated ferret?" Well, if anyone can accurately answer that one,
then they are better than me. The truth is, NO ONE knows the exact
lineage because NO ONE knows which polecat was domesticated to become
the ferret. We know it was the European polecat, Mustela putorius, or
the steppe polecat, Mustela eversmanni, or both polecats at some time
or another, but the exact progenitor (the ancestor of the domesticated
animal) is currently unknown and unproved.

This is an important point, because if you look up the scientific name
of the ferret in some American references, they are invariably listed
as "Mustela putorius." This is especially true from organizations or
publications that are inherently anti-domesticated ferret or are
influenced by zoologists that dislike our little friends.
Interestingly, similar references from European sources almost
universally list the ferret as "Mustela furo." The question comes
down to, "Which one is correct?"

Before that can be answered, there is one other complicating factor.
Currently, in zoology, there is no agreed upon protocol for naming
domesticated animals. For example, dogs are listed as "Canis
familiaris" even though it has been shown their progenitor is "Canis
lupus." In fact, there are a lot of domesticated species that have
unique scientific names even though the progenitor species is known.
But then, you have domesticated species like the pig, rabbit, mink, and
rat where the scientific name for both the domesticated animal and its
progenitor are the same. This is basically because zoologists have a
hard time seeing human selection as an evolutionary force and simply do
not consider domesticated animals as part of the zoological landscape.
The dolts. Over the years, a series of nomenclatural rules have been
proposed, but not a single one has been accepted by more than the
proposing scientist and their clump of graduate students.

Happily for us, four years ago the organization that decides what the
scientific names of animals should be (the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature - the ICZN) made a ruling that fixed the names
of 17 progenitor species. This was in case the progenitor of a
domesticated species was found and the domesticate had naming priority.
For example, if "FishandGamus stupidus" was domesticated from the
species "FishandGamus idiotus," but was named first, then the rules of
naming priority could be used to force the renaming of the progenitor
species. The ruling preserves the names of 17 of those progenitors. It
does another thing as well: for species where the progenitor is unknown
(or unproved), it preserves the original scientific name. The
domesticated ferret is one of those species.

Since the latest published works on genetics cannot deduce which
polecat was the progenitor, the scientific name of the ferret has to
revert to the original scientific name, "Mustela furo." If you find any
reference, even newly published ones, that say different, then you know
that either the scholarship is poor because they haven't read the ICZN
ruling (news of which was even published in Ferrets Magazine years
ago), or the publication is simply out of date. In either case, the
reference is incongruent with and oppositional to ICZN protocol. So, to
answer the question of "Which one is wrong?," it would be those using
the name, "Mustela putorius." At this time, under ICZN ruling and
current genetic research, the correct scientific name of the
domesticated ferret is "Mustela furo."

If you want to read a highly detailed and redundantly referenced paper
on this subject, get a second edition (2007) copy of John Lewington's
"Ferret Husbandry, Medicine and Surgery." It is more than worth the
$100+ price tag, even if spoiled by a couple of heavily referenced
chapters that could put the worst insomniac to sleep.

Not only is the ferret's scientific name somewhat controversial, but
also the entire phylogeny of the Mustelidae, especially the genus
Mustela. Some recent genetics work has helped to solve that problem,
but much more research needs to be done. A paramount question -- at
least for us -- is the exact relationship of the subgenus Putorius.
There are three wild and one domesticated species within this subgenus:
Mustela eversmanni (steppe polecat), Mustela furo (domesticated
polecat), Mustela nigripes (black-footed ferret, which is a North
American polecat), and Mustela putorius (European polecat). Currently,
the three wild polecats are considered separate species, but that may
change in a relatively short time. For decades, it has been argued the
black-footed ferret was a subspecies of the steppe polecat, but recent
genetic, zoological, and ecological studies suggest the European and
steppe polecats might also be a single species.

In support of the "single species" idea is that ALL polecats evolved
from a single founding population living in a relatively small
geographic region as short a time ago as the late Pleistocene. Because
of this, both ferrets and polecats have a highly conserved genome (the
genetic information) with a similarly highly conserved karyotype (the
external appearance of the chromosomes). Like in humans, while
domesticated ferrets may look different on the outside, they actually
have a VERY narrow genetic diversity (genetic differences) on the
inside. This could be explained by 2500 years of inbreeding and
introgression across a wide geographic region, or because it reflects
an original narrow diversity in polecats to begin with. Hopefully,
the research I will be doing in a few months will go a long way to
help answer those questions.

Some lineages include "levels" that are not traditional taxonomic
ranks. In many cases, these are clades that result from a detailed
evolutionary analysis called "Cladistics" (or phylogentic systematics).
This is different from traditional taxonomy and can result in multiple
levels that cannot be organized into traditional schemes or lineages.
For example, some lineages start with "cellular organisms," but that
is not a taxonomic rank, as is the "fungi/metazoan group" not one. In
the former example, you might as well use "living things," and in the
later, it is a hypothetical clade somewhere between two taxonomic
rankings. Trying to mix traditional taxonomy with cladistics can be
extremely confusing to those who are not SOS members (Splitters On
Steroids). Also, a single cladistic analysis can result in many
alternative outcomes, some of which are quite similar. The decision
process used to accept one clade scheme over another can be complex and
many clades are later shown to be erroneous. In fact, you could add a
few data categories and completely change the resulting clades. While
I am a huge fan of cladistics, its plethora of levels can be confusing
to those who do not live and breath systematics, so I generally will
not include them within most lineages, and stick to the traditional
taxonomic ranks.

Also, synonyms are common, so one lineage might use "Animalia," while
another uses "Metazoa." I tend to use the more traditional term for
ease of understanding. For example, using "Animalia" brings more
understanding to more people than the term "Metazoa."

If you think the ties between ferrets consuming carbohydrates and the
incidence of insulinoma is "hypothetical," you need to understand the
hypothetical nature of lineages. The only TRUE thing in nature is the
individual species! All classifications above species are arbitrary and
unreal, subject to rapid change. Lineages are a tool for the scientist
to understand genetic and evolutionary relationships. Therefore, they
are subject to change at the whim of fad, or the increase of knowledge.

So, understanding these controversies and problems, this is the best
current ferret lineage I can offer --of course, it is subject to
controversy and change:

Superkingdom: Eukaryota (organisms with nucleated cells)
Kingdom: Animalia (multicellular animals; synonymous with Metazoa)
Phylum: Chordata (animals with notochords)
Subphylum: Craniata (chordates with skulls and vertebral columns; in
many taxonomic schemes, the Vertebrata (vertebrates) are considered
the Subphylum rank, and the Craniata a clade above it)
Superclass: Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates)
Class: Mammalia (mammals)
Subclass: Theria (marsupials and placental mammals; sometimes not
considered a subclass))
Infraclass: Eutheria (placental mammals; sometimes not considered an
infraclass)
Superorder: Laurasiatheria (mammals that evolved on the supercontinent
of Laurasia, including carnivores, bats, hedgehogs, moles & shrews,
cattle & antelope, horses, and others).
Order: Carnivora (mammalian carnivores)
Suborder: Caniformia (dog-like carnivores)
Superfamily: Arctoidea (bear-like carnivores)
Family: Mustelidae (mustelid carnivores)
Subfamily: Mustelinae (weasel-like carnivores)
Genus: Mustela (ferrets & polecats, mink, weasels & ermine)
Subgenus: Putorius (ferrets & polecats)
Species: Mustela furo (the domesticated ferret)

This is currently the best I can do, but recognize it is a tenuous
thing subject to the winds of change, powered by cladistic and genetic
discovery.

Bob C  [log in to unmask]

[Posted in FML 5843]