I promised a couple of people I would attempt to clarify the problem of ferrets and species names. I'm not sure it could be done in a major paper, much less than in the limited forum presented here. But I'll try, and if you have more questions, I can answer them later. The problem has several sides; the most obvious are the political side, and the biological side. Biologically, virtually every zoologist I have read indicates the ferret is a domesticated form of polecat, most likely that of the European polecat, Mustela putorius. While there is no direct physical evidence of the association; the circumstantial evidence continues to grow. While the ancestry of the ferret is not exactly know, these are the best three possiblities: 1) The ferret was domesticated from the European Polecat, 2) The ferret was domesticated from a now-extinct relative of the European Polecat, and 3) the ferret was domesticated from the steppe polecat. Because of genetic research, only the first two possibilities are concidered plausable. So zoologists generally agree that the ferret is a domesticated polecat. Their problem is in the nomenclature of the animal--how do we name our domesticated species? This is complicated in the ferret because we have no real proof of the of the true ancestor. The issue is still to be resolved, and as scientific studies of domestication increase, it only gets more passionate. The worst flames I've ever recieved were from scientists arguing their cause. (Darwin was lucky he had Huxley.) This greatly confuses the issue. As does the difference between word usage of "normal" people compared to biologists. To many people, domestic and domesticated mean the same, but not to a biologist. Domestic can have several meanings, such as association with a particular region, association with people, and domesticated. It is far more accurate to say "I have a domesticated ferret" than it is to say "I have a domestic ferret." For example, the black bear is domestic to the USA, the feral cat tends to live in domestic environments, and we all love domestic ferrets. If I lived in Europe, and said that I saw a domestic ferret, what would I mean? Could be interpreted as all three. Which brings us to the political side of the question. Ferrets are the pawns of political chess, and nothing else. Concider their history in California. They started out being used for two basic reasons; to hunt rabbits, and for pest control. While I am not an expert of ferreting, it does seem that it has historically been the domain of the lower classes, especially in the last century. One of the main reasons ferrets were made illegal was to regulate ferretting. Supposedly, it caused a decline in rabbits for hunting. However, the practice is centuries old in Britain and Europe, with no major problems. This is probably a situation where rich hunters with guns and political savvy disliked poorer ferreters on their "property." Also, ferrets had been used for ratting, but the introduction of various rat baits in the late 1920s and early 1930s caused their popularity to decline. The shift in emphasis from natural controls to chemical controls may have been, in part, economically motiviated. In other words, ferrets had never been associated with the politically correct nor economically powerful. That was then. What about now? The question of ferrets is not about science nor biology. It is about political power. The CA F&G justifies it's existence through the work it is supposed to be doing. If it loses some of that job, it loses part of it's justification for existance, which means, jobs might be lost. Another reason (and I have been TOLD this) is because there are no feral CA ferrets, the law must be working! If the law was repealed, then there would be feral ferrets. Besides ignoring the history and the number of pet ferrets in the state, a beginning high school science student should be able to pick up the tautological nature of this argument, where the statement becomes the evidence. A third reason is because the F&G can claim "success" in one area while ignoring failures in others. They have saved CA from the ferret, but black bears are poached for gall bladders, etc. The history of the F&G in CA (and many other areas) is one of mismanagement of species, based not on scientific reasoning, but on political motivation. This is why terminology is so important, and why the question of Mustela putorius vs Mustela furo becomes so critical. Ernst Mayer considers the subspecies classification to be a taxonomic reference only (except in very rare cases), which means Mustela putorius furo = Mustela putorius putorius, or commonly, ferret = polecat. We, and virtually every zoologist and zooarchaeologist as well, know this isn't true. But on paper it is, and it gives a tool for the F&G to use against truth, justice, and the American way. That is why I advocate using "fitch" for feral ferrets and hybrids, "domesticated ferret or Mustela furo" for our little buddies, and "European polecat or Mustela putorius" for polecats. While I would love to laugh at the CA F&G, who have a collective intelligence lower than the IQ of a dead man, it doesn't change the problems in terminology. (Maybe they are negatively-charged intelligences, and if they come into contact with anyone with a positively-charged intelligence, and explosion would occur...Naw, they have vaccuums up there. We are in no danger.) But understanding the problem gives us some ammunition to fight back with. I think someone needs to review the CA F&G's success in protecting native species through time, and compare it with present efforts, and see how much money is being wasted in against ferrets. Then go after Wilson, who wants to be president someday, and get him to cut those wasted funds from the budget. Go after their pocketbooks, and make them look stupid, CA. The press would LOVE IT! (IMHO, of course!) The Nondomesticated Bob and the Completely Domesticated Thirteen [Posted in FML issue 1435]