Certain Comments on the Subspecies Problem

Losing the forest for the tree? On the wisdom of subpopulation management

“…Multiple authors have argued that many subspecies, including some characterized recently, are ill-defined, do not confirm to rigorous standards of diagnosability, and/or have not been evaluated with any, much less, modern statistical approaches, including hypothesis testing (e.g., Barrowclough, 1982;Barrowclough & Flesness, 1996;McKitrick & Zink, 1988;Patten, 2010;Tilden, 1961). Sadly, it appears that standardized, robust methods for delineating subspecies have not yet been adopted, and most delineations of subspecies do not include sufficient hypothesis testing in the form of identifying a null hypothesis (Patten, 2010(Patten, , 2015.…”

“…There is also disagreement about what a subspecies is (Patten, 2010; Starrett, 1958; Storer, 1982; Tilden, 1961; Zusi, 1982), or whether subspecies is even a useful concept (Burbrink et al, 2022; Wilson & Brown, 1953). In a 1982 forum published in the Auk (99: 593–615), 11 authors disapproved of the practice in which geographic variation in species is given taxonomic nomenclature (i.e., a subspecies designation), especially when the variation forms a cline‐a gradient of a character across a geographic range, which some suggest has no place in delineation of subspecies (Patten, 2010; Wilson & Brown, 1953).…”

The Subspecies Concept in Zoology and Anthropology

“…He advocated an 84% nonoverlap rule as probably evidence of a degree of divergence worthy of subspecies recognition and the trinomen (1959). Tilden (1961), supporting the subspecies, saw the conflict as being a 1. semantic problem, with writers not always having the same concept, and 2. the product of using (or attempting to use) classification/taxonomy for two purposes.…”

“…Starrett noted in his review, that &dquo;all expressed discontent ... as regards the sometimes unwise use of the subspecies concept and the indiscriminate naming of infraspecific populations.&dquo; Starrett suggested that the conflict emerged secondary to 1. the increased knowledge of specific and infraspecific variation and, hence, the realization that older categories would not hold if taxonomy were going to reflect &dquo;true relationship,&dquo; as opposed to being a pigeonholing device, and 2. misunderstanding between investigators working on different groups, where the same level of sophistication in systematics had not been reached; perception of utility and validity of taxonomic concepts might be expected to differ between microbiologists, malacologists and mammologists. Tilden (1961) suggested that there was only a semantic problem causing misunderstanding. Wilson and Brown (1953) and Brown and Wilson (1954) severely criticized the subspecies (geographical race) concept and trinomen, initiating the debate over the nature of infraspecific variation.…”