Well, I've had lots of mail regarding the paper on skunks and what it means,
how it relates to ferrets, etc.  Lots of comments (some lost to the Infamous
Computer Crash of '97) and lots of questions.
 
The original article (Jerry W.  Dragoo and Rodney L.  Honeycutt 1997
Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores 1997 Journal of Mammalogy
78(2):426-443) really didn't address ferrets (although it wasn't clear if
the animals they tested were polecats or ferrets-they labeled them European
ferrets); it was a look at how skunks related to the rest of the Mustelidae.
A comparative study of common areas of mitochrondrial DNA was performed,
with the assumption that more similarity equaled closer relationships.  A
cladistical analysis was performed on the results of the DNA analysis, and
lots of other data was referred to in order to support the idea that the
skunks should be removed from the Mustelidae and placed within their own
family group, to be called Mephitidae.
 
I have read the paper several times now, and the more I read it, the more I
like it.  While I have some questions and read several criticisms (which I
will spare you), overall, I think the paper is quite good, and I also think,
with time, the reclassification will take place and skunks will be removed
from the Mustelidae.  As already explained, the key word is time and such a
reclassification *has not* taken place.
 
The paper, and the general public/FML response is quite interesting.  Lots
of the questions asked of me where quite good, some cutting to the heart of
this type of science.  I will try to answer about a dozen questions in as
few lines as possible.  To begin with, there are two types of classification
scientists- spliters and lumpers.  In essence, spliters make a big deal out
of minor details, and lumpers tend to concider everything as variation, not
difference.  So a spliter would write Mustela furo, while a lumper would
write Mustela putorius furo.  This is important, because everything above
the species level is theoretical; it is not real.  So classification schemes
often are different depending on if the writer is a spliter or a lumper.
 
In other words, you can find a ferret or a polecat, but just try to find a
Mustelidae, a Carnivora, a Vertebrata, etc.  These do not exist as real
things, but instead symbolize relationships between species.  So we lump
together all the animals with specific, agreed upon characteristics into
family groups.  Similar families are grouped together into orders, and so
on.  Change the characteristics of the group, and it could require some
animals to be moved from one group to another.  Some groups might have to be
invented, and others could cease to exist.
 
Why can't we set up a classification what would not have to be revised?
Because the classification system is only an intellectual tool for
understanding how animals relate to each other; it is not real, and it
reflects an understanding of the world that is imperfect, because we are
still studying it.  As the paleontological record becomes more precise, as
more DNA studies are done, or more morphological analysis completed, the
picture becomes more and more clear.  Revisions reflect better understanding
and things change.  How things are lumped together can cause nasty arguments
from scientists with different points of view, which can resemble
professional wrestling at the verbage level.  (And in fevered action,
BioDweeb accuses Genetico of being obtuse, but Genetico counters with a
non-parsimonious slap to the face...BioDweeb tags his partner, Straw Man,
who trys to hide his fatal flaw from the probing argument of Genetico...)
 
Also, it is important to realise how much biology has changed since the
adoption of the curret classification system.  Invented by Linneaus, the
scheme was in long use before the introduction and adoptation of evolution.
Originally, it was used to group animals by "types," but is now used to show
evolutionary relationships.  Thus, from time to time, there is some shifting
or corrections to better show those evolutionary lines.  The skunk case is a
fine example of this.
 
Finally, evolutionary rates are relative to each species.  Some evolve
rapidly, like humans, and other slowly, like turtles.  Regardless of the
time of the split between skunks and ferrets, it is obvious the real
differences between them are minor.  The type of stability exhibited by
skunks over time can be interpreted that they are a very successful species,
and the peleontological and zoological records support it.  Stability
generally means a low rate of evolutionary change, so even though then are
distant cousins, they are morphologically similar.
 
So what does it mean to the ferret owner?  To me, especially regarding to
topic of rabies, nothing.  Being closely or distantly related to skunks
doesn't influence your ability to contract rabies at all.  Last I heard,
nearly all mammals can contract rabies, and most are far more removed from
the skunks than ferrets.  As pointed out to me in a private letter, some
people tend to associate ferrets with skunks because they are both
mustelids, and this might be helpful.  But from what I understand of the
controversy, the problem is not that ferrets are closely related to skunks,
but that rabies studies are incomplete (no flaming me here, I understand
what testing has and hasn't been done on all the domesticates.  I'm just
pointing out the argument).
 
It is important to remember that even if the skunks are removed from the
Mustelidae, they would still be closer related to ferrets than most of the
other carnivores.  Remember, we are not changing living kinships; just
theoretical relationships.
 
Bob C and 21 MO Toothed Furtubes
[Posted in FML issue 2046]