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]