But which is which though?Alan Seaton said:How about white wagtail/ pied wagtail?
helenol said:But which is which though?
Nutcracker said:Hi Dimitris,
Not very clear - but it isn't your fault , it can't be made clear as there is no simple division between the two, there is a full continuum of variation between things that are obviously distinct species (e.g. Osprey) right the way, gradually less and less distinct, through to birds which it is hard or debatable to even call them subspecies at all (e.g. your local Greek Blue Tits Parus caeruleus calamensis, some don't accept the validity of the subspecies at all)
So there are plenty (hundreds!) of cases where it is very debatable whether to call something a species or a subspecies - why are the ducks you cite different species, while the juncos aren't? It would be just as valid to split the juncos into several species and lump the ducks into one
Clines can be very tricky too, you have a species which varies a tiny little bit step by step across its range . . . but the extremes, if compared, are strikingly different, and if or when they ever meet up, don't interbreed and behave like species. A good one like this is Greenish Warbler: it has a cline that stretches from northeast Europe down through central Asia to the western Himalaya, along the Himalaya into China, back up through China and up into central Siberia. The two extremes have met up with each other somewhere in Siberia, and they behave as two different species (Greenish Warbler, Two-barred Greenish Warbler). But the cline all round the Himalaya shows they are the same species . . .
One good thing about it all - if it wasn't so complex, ornithology would be a lot less interesting!
Perhaps it is worth remembering that "species" is a term invented by man. Nature has no reason to conform to any particular definition of the term.helenol said:Can someone explain in laymans terms, the difference between a full species and sub species? Giving examples will also help!
Thanks.
helenol said:But which is which though?
Jane Turner said:In the is case Helen it would be technically correct to describe Pied Wagtail Montacilla alba yarelli as a race of White Wagtail M.a. alba.
Tannin said:Rasmus is right on the money. I'll try to translate his account into simpler terms.
First, forget all about questions of "how different" Bird A and Bird B are. That has nothing to do with species/subspecies distinctions. Any consistent difference is sufficient to differentiate between different populations - it doesn't matter how large or small the difference is, just so long as there is a consistent and recognisable difference.
Both species and subspecies have differences (call, plumage, length of tail - it doesn't matter what this difference is).
Both species and subspecies do not, as a general rule, interbreed. This is not a fixed, absolute rule - the key point is that there is no significant gene flow between two populations. This applies equally. (What counts as "significant" gene flow, of course, is a matter for judgement. Expert opinions will sometimes differ.
You are justified in making a subspecies distinction when, although there is little or no gene flow between the two populations, you have reason to believe that there would be gene flow if it were practicable - typically, the two subspecies are geographically isolated, but if you were to bring them together in the same place then they would interbreed.
You are justified in making a species distinction when there is little or no gene flow and you have reason to believe that there would still be little or no gene flow even if the two populations were brought together in the same place.
Notice that difference alone is not enough to justify either categorisation: for example, some humans have blue eyes, some brown. Although it's an obvious difference, there is clearly gene flow (i.e., interbreeding) between blue-eyed and brown-eyed humans and neither one is a seperate species or subspecies.
Nor, taken alone, is lack of gene flow enough to justify a distinction - often, this is simply because there are two populations that don't happen to meet regularly enough for gene flow to take place.
You only get a species/subspecies dstinction when you have both difference and lack of gene flow. If that lack of gene flow is because they can't/won't interbreed, then you have two different species. If it's because they can interbreed readily but are prevented from doing so by some circumstance (such as living in different geographical areas), then you have two different subspecies.
Finally, we should consider the case where you have a mere clinal variation. For example, Koalas in southern Australia and those in northern Australia are obviously quite different. You can tell them apart at a glance. But as you travel between the ends of the continent you see that those in-between are in fact ... er .. in-between! A NSW Koala looks like a cross between a Qld Koala and a Victorian Koala - and in fact, that's exactly what it is! They interbreed freely from one district to another and, over time, genes travel back and forwards via many matings and many generations all the way up and down the continent. Thus, because there is significant gene flow, the different Koala populations are regarded as simply a single species with variant types: there are no Koala subspecies. A great many birds do the same sort of thing, of course.
James Blake said:Are there any competing subspecies concepts?
James Blake said:The one you mention seems to have certain flaws (like, probably, all species concepts). For instance, it seems to imply that two previously isolated populations lose their subspecies status as soon as they meet up and interbreed, which seems far too cut-and-dried.
James Blake said:And how would it apply to humans? Before the current era at least some populations were relatively isolated.