A personal rant I would have thought. There might be something in these ideas but how is taxonomic research “ivory towers” or doing harm other than seeking to clarify and describe the fauna? This below is complete with many spelling and word lapses: e.g. “very diligent in suppressing any decent about it.” Really? I think you mean dissent! And is that even true? And: “yet taxon its lobby for their use” Huh? And how can anyone be “mercilessly vindicated”? That is an oxymoron. “Today it is largely drowned out or vindicated by academic committees”. Well if is is “vindicated”, then what is your problem?
I reckon it is fairly self contradictory also.
Being able to designate subspecies only means that there is sufficient variation (usually geographic) between populations that we call one species that we can choose to give those variations a name. Species that do not have this variation (that we have found) are not in any way superior or not to those that do. Giving those with that variation a separate name can only help to identify and keep track of these. And yes they are often arbitrary, simply because evolution is an ongoing process. Surely it is somewhat nonsensical to talk about if “a bird is a species or a subspecies”. Subspecies only has relevance to that there is a distinction to other subspecies of that species. In conservation it simply means that there is a mechanism to give particular attention to a particular subspecies if for example it is threatened when the greater part of that species is not. But to do so requires that we can identify what that target group is. So for example the Helmeted Honeyeater can be given special attention, that is not available to be targeted to all other populations (subspecies) of the Yellow-tufted Honeyeater.
Philip Veerman
—–Original Message—–
From: Birding-Aus [Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
