A few people asked for a specific paper that (1) supports ferrets as being Mustela furo rather than Mustela putorius furo, (2) discusses the critera that defines domesticates, and (3) illustrates the controversy surrounding the domestication issue in regards to taxonomists. (Actually, it was it was seven requests distilled to the above). Ok, try: Colin P. Groves "On the nomenclature of domestic animals" 1995 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(2):137-141. This is a short and easy to read paper that clearly illustrates some of the problems I've been discussing for the last six months--at least from the viewpoint of taxonomic nomenclature. If you are well practiced "speaking biologica" you will have no problems; if not, a dictionary will help in a few places. The only point of contention I have with the paper is the assumption that the proven ancestor of the domesticated ferret is the European polecat. While I agree this is probably the case, I still contend the association is unproven (1) because the archaeological/paleontological evidence is lacking (try nonexistant), and (2) because although the ferret's closest extant-species relative is the European polecat, that isn't proof that an extinct species couldn't have been the ancestor. This paper also supplies evidence to my earlier contention that no one is really sure if the animals in New Zealand are feral domesticated ferrets, European polecats, or hybrids. My contention is they must be hybrids of one degree or another, because it is improbable that they would not interbreed. According to Groves (and references contained within the paper) without human intervention, the two groups would readily merge into one. Since both domesticated ferrets and European polecats were released on New Zealand, any survivors would have interbred, meaning their offspring (virtually all feral fitch on the island) would be domesticated- wild hybrids; technically NOT domesticated ferrets. The paper also points out a great inconsistancy in taxonomic nomenclature: the rules are applied differently to different species. For example: the dog, cat, and ferret (and at least 15 other species) were named PRIOR to the naming of the wild species (if it was known or clear). If they are the same species, then the rules of priority should follow, and the wild animal should take its name from the prior-named domesticate. As far as I can tell, in all but one case, the two names remain, leaving the impression of two separate species (i.e., Canis lupus and Canis familiaris, Felis silvestris and Felis catus, Equus caballus and Equus ferus, etc). The ferret is an exception; not only did the "two species" become one, but they took the younger name (Mustela putorius) rather than the older one (remember the rules of priority? They didn't...). While taxonomists and those who deal with species concepts generally understand what is going on, it is not clear to most, and the flaws become exploitable and damaging by the ethically-challenged, like those green-shirted neo/bio-nazi bumbling Californian political-biologists who think Ernst Meyer makes wieners and Darwin is an Australian city. I swear that if brains were cotton, they wouldn't have enough to make a maxi-pad for a flea. (hey, what an idea for a thread...the CFG are so dumb that (supply your own joke here). We can collect them and e-mail them to Pete Wilson, and say "this is what the rest of the nation thinks of your bureauocratic biologists, and why we live in other states....") So, go ahead and call the ferret "Mustela furo." What are they gonna do? Take away your birthday? (They can take away mine anytime they like...) Tell them you'll get your act together as soon as they do. Bob and the 13 Height-Challenged Length-Advantaged Politically Incorrect European Politicobiologist Haters. PS: Why are the bio-nazis in the CFG called "Game Wardens?" Because they play games with the truth, and they love to throw people in jail.... [Posted in FML issue 1509]