When is a race not a race? (1 Viewer)

[Lucky Birder]

There has been a few questions about sub species lately including Hirundo rustica transitiva, Aegithalos caudatus/europaeus and of course the hardy pirennial Anthus petrosus littoralis. My question is; to what extent can you ever identify a bird's race? There is enough heartache over the various species concepts never mind sub species. I don't think there is an accepted formal definition of race (can someone refute this)? Can't we only ever say, 'showing characteristics of' ....... etc.

Personally, I'm quite a fan of races/sub species and am always on the look out for the various forms on my travels in Europe.

Any comments?

 

[Edward woodwood]

the answer of course is:

it depends

if it's an isolated island race or races geographically isolated and noticably phenotypically different then you could id it.

If there's a cline between 'races' then it could be impossible with perhaps only individuals from the 'centre' of the range being doable (Desert Lesser Whitethroat, halimodendri and the desert race (minula?) spring to mind)

and maybe there are genotype differences btw 'races' (that we cannot 'see') so we are not calling them races at the moment as we cannot see the phenotypical differences...? Maybe the difference is in the call? Who knows...?

I think Martin C. will be able to give more erudition than my lowly attempts!

Tim

 

[Lucky Birder]

Hi Tim, a good response. I just think that the very concept of race is misunderstood. Why do we recognise wrens on Shetland, St.Kilda, Fair Isle and the Outer Hebrides but not Scilly, which look different from the mainland? Why isn't the Dunnock on Scilly a separate race? Of course the really distinct races, i.e island birds are insipient species. In this way perhaps sub species and race should not be synonomous. The distinction: races being the clinal type liable to intergradation and sub species being the more distinct and consistent 'phenotypes.'

- A

 

[screaming piha]

Unlike species, there is as far as I know no scientific definition of a subspecies. Because of that, some of them are very distinct (e.g. Yellow Wags), some of them vary slightly from other ssp, and some are surely figments of bird collectors' imaginations (look up how many ssp of British birds there are and see if you can tell them apart, e.g. a yellowhammer from Wales from one from Norfolk).

Basically, back in the day when birders blasted everything in sight, if you filed a specimen and described its differences from the type specimen, you had your own subspecies. Because sp/ssp are described based on one individual (the type specimen) or a small number of examples, and with all the individual variation that goes on, it's not surprising that people found differences from type specimens.

Othertimes it's just that no-one killed one and described it, which may be the case with things like Scilly Dunnock (I've not looked up Dunnock races, I'm just using it as a theoretical example).

 

[Docmartin]

I think Martin C. will be able to give more erudition than my lowly attempts!

Tim

Yeh, but you wouldn't understand... :-O
Subspecies are a useful way of labelling the geographic varaition in a species, and cataloguing populations that might really merit species status, or not. More than that, I can't get excited about the problem. You can formalise the subspecies criteria, e.g. to only recognise subspecies if >75% of individuals in that subsp. are recognisable as such... but I'm not actually certain that he current system, using subspp. status as a trash can for anything that has been recognised as a geographic variant, really does any harm. Don't tell anyone I said that. :eek!:

 

[cuckooroller]

Doc,
I agree. It is implicit that bird taxonomy, as many other things, is the fruit of man's necessity to quantify and categorize his surroundings. A useful construct and not necessarily counterproductive as long as we remain cognizant that we are ever dealing with relatively loose models and not unchanging absolutes.

 

[lou salomon]

Unlike species, there is as far as I know no scientific definition of a subspecies. Because of that, some of them are very distinct (e.g. Yellow Wags), some of them vary slightly from other ssp,...
QUOTE]

but what to do with all those "dombrowskiis" :eek!: - almost all transition types occur within the same area... (just as an exeption from all those very distinct ssp)

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

The following is quote on subspecies from Birds of the High Andes by Fjeldsaa and Krabbe. That's probably as precise as you're going to get it:

Distinct geographical representative of the same species. The meaning has shifted somewhat, as previous authors gave subspecies names to even the most subtle local variants. Today, names are normally applied when all or most specimens from a certain geographic area differ from individuals from other areas.

"Subtle forms" is the somewhat loose term often used for variations in species where the variation is clinal. In the past these were frequently classed as subspecies, but many (far from all, though) biologists are moving away from this approach.

 

[Lucky Birder]

One 'definition' I have come across is: A subdivision of a species, which is consistently morphologically distinct from other such subdivisions. I think we possibly use the term race or subspecies to mean any diagnosably different form of a species. Of course whether a race belongs to a population that is consistently distinct is another matter. Going back to my original point, we seem to give some populations subspecific status and not others. I think I will add Prunella modularis scillonius to my subspecies list.

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Going back to my original point, we seem to give some populations subspecific status and not others.

There are two main problems:

1) Two biologists do not necessarily have the same approach to subspecies (or even species, as can be seen frequently). Today, the largest problem is if it is a species or "only" a subspecies. Likewise, clinal variation pose a problem. Statistical models made specifically for checking if the variation is present in a sufficient percentage of a population to be recognized as a different taxon exist, so this part does not really pose a big problem anymore.

2) There are many species "out there" (esp. from various tropical regions) where just about everybody agree that the subspecies are in serious need of a revision. However, the mistaken classificaion will remain until someone actually take the time to look at the group. Even if we know the current classification is mistaken, it can't be corrected until we know what is correct (there's a big difference between knowing something is mistaken and knowing the solution). There's a lot of cleaning needed after earlier attempts of classification.

 

[Lucky Birder]

Hi Rasmus, that's good. So can I have Scilly Dunnock? If anyone hasn't been to Scilly, the Dunnocks there have an uncanny resemblance to Swamp Sparrows!

 

[Stuart Watson]

Interesting Rasmus - so true that some species may never even be regarded as subspecies and to a further extent seperate species. I think it is an endless task as the ever changing diet and environment automatically `evolving` species/subspecies is always going to develop `change` no matter how slight.
If a birder regards an `isolated` group of species as a sub and has sufficient reasoning for this belief then surely a report to the relevant cataloging organisation requesting investigation into recognition of the differences should be made. A sub in Essex for example could be identical to another sub in Inverness , but the chances are it would be seen as two different ssp or not even regarded as a ssp at all.
Is there a catalogue listing site of recognized subs? and if so - clear definition must be available there. Where is the line drawn?

 

[Rasmus Boegh]

Hi Rasmus, that's good. So can I have Scilly Dunnock? If anyone hasn't been to Scilly, the Dunnocks there have an uncanny resemblance to Swamp Sparrows!

Descriptions of various taxa are mainly based on published material (even if some of it is very old). So, if you publish an article in a scientific paper using the various tecniques needed - then sure, of course you can have the Scilly Dunnock...

If a birder regards an `isolated` group of species as a sub and has sufficient reasoning for this belief then surely a report to the relevant cataloging organisation requesting investigation into recognition of the differences should be made. A sub in Essex for example could be identical to another sub in Inverness , but the chances are it would be seen as two different ssp or not even regarded as a ssp at all.
Is there a catalogue listing site of recognized subs? and if so - clear definition must be available there. Where is the line drawn?

Various scientists are already aware of most problem groups. The only reason why the majority of them haven't been solved basically comes down to time and money (although a few of those ring species probably can't be solved in a satisfying way with the tools available today). Describing a taxon takes time and knowledge. There's too few people around with the knowledge needed and too few money for all the surveys needed = many groups will have to wait. As usual, birds in Europe and USA/Canada have received the most attention and there is little that remains to be done on that front. Both regions have relatively few species/subspecies and therefore are far simpler than the regions where much work still needs to be done, these being Africa, South America and SE Asia.

There are quite a few catelogues around that include subspecies, but only a few dealing with birds on a Worldwide basis. The three main are Sibley & Monroe, Howard & Moore and Clements. However, classifying all birds is far too great a task for any single group. These lists are only compilations of information, generally taken from various papers published by scientists at a more or less continuous rate. Even reading and analysing all the papers published on bird taxonomy in a single year would probably be far too great a task for any single group of people. So, sometimes they get it wrong. Furthermore, many groups have not even been analysed yet, so above lists have to use the historical treatment, even if everybody know it is mistaken (see my previous post, part 2). What was described as a subspecies 50 years ago may have been mistaken for a number of reasons, usually because they didn't have the needed information available back then. To confuse it even further there often are more than one historical treatment. It may be clear that none of them are good, meaning that they have to choose the "least bad one" - at least until someone comes along a do a more thorough check-up on the group. Today most (but not all) scientists seem to agree that the definitions mentioned in post #8 & 9 are the most accurate (basically two ways of saying more or less the same; I'm sure there are other ways of saying it).