Many zoologists would agree domesticated forms can be substainally different
than wild forms.  These differences can be visually subtle, like with
ranched fox and mink, or they can be visually apparent, like between most
dogs and wolves.  Usually, the major difference is in what is called a
"juvenilization" of the species; that is, the species begins to retain a
juvenile morphology (form) and behavior.  Shorter jaws (jammed teeth), high
foreheads, and repressed adult behaviors are very common, and are seen in
extreme form in domesticated carnivores, such as ferrets, cats and dogs, and
to a somewhat lesser degree in domesticated livestock, like horses, cows and
sheep.  The repressed behavioral traits include the animals acceptance of
other animals as siblings, consideration of humans as alpha animals, and a
desire for or acceptance of human contact.  (Admitedly, this is an extremely
short and simplified list.)
 
The differences between polecats and ferret may not jump out and smack you
in the head if you compare polecats to sables, but they are there, and they
are profound.  Put a ferret and a polecat in an open room, and the ferret
checks out the center of the room, while polecats tend to stay near the
walls.  Polecats are more intelligent, better climbers, and very aggressive
compared to ferrets, they have a different reproductive cycle (one litter a
year compared to at least two litters per year with ferrets).  They walk
slightly differently, and certainly treat newcomers quite different (if you
think getting a new ferret into an established group is hard, just try to
get two male polecats to accept each other) They have differences in vision,
physiology, reproduction, behavior and morphology, which is almost all cases
would normally place than in different species if they where both wild
forms.  And if you consider ferrets are reproductively isolated from
polecats, then the species separation is a given.  While this is not always
aceepted by Amercanist zoologists, it is almost universally accepted by
Europeanist zoologists, who generally use the _Mustela furo_ binomial rather
than _Mustela putorius furo_.
 
To further illustrate the problem in classification that exists today, let
me describe exactly *how* museums decide how to classify their specimens.
The curator simply decides which published scheme they which to use; one in
a major publication, such as Walker's Mammals of the World, or Hall's The
Mammals of North America.  In all honesty, this isn't done because of
prejudice, but out of a desire to normalize the classifications for ease of
study.  Yes, even with the emphasis on nomenclature, some authors simply
disagree and go their own way.  An excellent example is found in the
Peterson's Field Guide to the Mammals of North America North of Mexico, by
W. H. Burt.  All authorities now use the generic name of _Spermophilus_
for many ground squirels, and Burt knew it when he wrote the book, but
didn't approve of the change, so used the outdated and incorrect _Citellus_
instead.  How do I know?  Because he said so on page xviii.
 
So you see, there is no question people want to be accurate, and have some
kind of justification for the terms they are using, but zoology is only now
coming to terms with the Great Synthesis and revising the morphological bias
that has been the mainstay of classification since Lineaus.  And things are
rapidly changing; species concepts, genetics, evolution, and biomechanical
morphological adaption are all replacing the outmoded ideas.  Not that they
were all that bad, mind you.  I would say the vast majority of the world's
classifications are correct and will never change.  Essentially, all that is
being done is a little tweaking or fine tuning, which all professionals do
in order to improve their product.
 
Because of the above, and in part because I am a malcontent, I recommend we
all use _Mustela furo_ as a species designation instead of the polecat
binomial in order to emphasize the differences between the two rather than
placing the emphasis on the similarities.  If anyone complains or argues,
then refer them to the papers written by European zoologists, or to some the
the arguments I have mentioned.  Or simply ask them to define a species,
then show how they just defined ferret as a separate species.  (Of course,
you can get philosophical and ask how an etic classification system can be
used with emic classifications.  The ol' extensionalist argument will
*always* work, but fers' da Calyfery Fesh en Gestapew has ta knol ha' ta
spall "Duh" an' dew sum bouk larnin'.)
 
Bob C and 21 MO Mentalist Mustelids
[Posted in FML issue 2057]