BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daniel Philippe" data-source="post: 1791222" data-attributes="member: 64614">Remsen, J. V. 2010. Subspecies as a meaningful taxonomic rank in avian classification.Ornithological Monographs  67: 62–78Abstract.—Dissatisfaction with the subspecies unit of classification is, in part, a consequence of the failure of many of those who have described subspecies to follow the conceptual definition of the subspecies, namely that it should represent diagnosable units. The antiquity of the descriptions of most subspecies (median year of description of currently recognized subspecies estimated to be 1908–1909) means that the majority predated any statistical tools for assessing diagnosability. The traditional subspecies concept, as originally construed, identifies minimum diagnosable units as terminal taxa, and I suggest that it is thus essentially synonymous with the phylogenetic species concept. Therefore, both must deal with the fundamental difficulties inherent in using diagnosability as a criterion. Application of monophyly as a criterion for taxon rank at the population level has inherent difficulties. An advantage of the biological species concept is that it incorporates, in its classification of taxa, assessments of gene flow and reproductive isolation, which are critical components of the evolutionary process. Critics of the biological species concept persistently overlook the fact that it includes the subspecies rank as a necessary component of that concept for distinct populations within biological species. Analyses that require terminal taxa can, with care, be conducted under the biological species concept using subspecies plus monotypic species. Critics of the biological species concept with respect to its application have missed the biological and political disadvantages of treating minimum diagnosable units as the primary unit of conservation concern. Human perception is in accord with ranking such minimum diagnosable units below the species rank; socially and scientifically, humans consider diagnosable units of other humans as distinct groups but not separate species.</blockquote>

Verification