What i dont get is that the definition of a hybrid: The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races. I cant seem to find any mention of it being on a subspecies level? Is this because locality animals are judged according to their appearance and colour? Wich is of absolutely no importance when it comes to proper taxonomy. Pardon my ignorance, I'm just trying to make sense of what the real issue is. So some private keepers came up with names for different localities, where these locality animals scientifically scrutinised to justify their naming? Also, how many times does nomenclature get revised as our understanding of it increases. Hybrids between species also produce unviable offspring? If these snakes were so different why do their offspring hybrids breed then? Sorry so many questions. I find this very confusing. How many times have animals been reclassified in the past only to be changed back to what was thought of their genetic link previously. I can see the point in not breeding different species to each other, but sub species whats the big deal!
Hi Cordylus,
I'll do my best to answer some of your questions. It's taken me a while to type this, so others may have responded in the meantime.
Part of what makes talking about subspecies hard is that there's no official definition for a subspecies. Subspecies differ from each other, but not enough to warrant being split into a separate species. The meanings of the terms 'subspecies' and 'race' are very similar.
A problem in understanding taxonomy comes from it being unnatural. A species is really an endpoint of evolution, but evolution hasn't stopped (so how do you find its end?), and different taxa may be at different 'points' of evolution.
Species and subspecies are very abstract and subjective taxa. You can use genetics to determine other levels of classification (like family, class, order, etc), but the lowest levels of classification are basically subject to opinion.
So some private keepers came up with names for different localities, where these locality animals scientifically scrutinised to justify their naming?
If an animal comes from a particular location, there's no need for science to verify that. An Alice Springs woma comes from Alice Springs.
how many times does nomenclature get revised as our understanding of it increases
You've hit the nail on the head there. 30 years ago, all carpet snakes from north or east Australia were
Morelia spilota variegata (I think that's correct). They've since been split into a number of subspecies. Prior to them being officially split, breeding a carpet from Brisbane with one from Darwin wouldn't have been classed as hybridising, as they both were the same subspecies. This may well happen again in the future with other species. Many people are aware of this, which is why they only breed animals from the same locality. The chances of two animals of the same species from the same location later being split into two separate subspecies is very low.
I know there are other members of this forum that have a better understanding than I of taxonomy and genetics, so if I've made any mistakes above, please correct me.
This thread has degenerated into name calling, so I'm going to end my involvement with it. It's a shame it's come to this, as I think this is a very interesting topic.
Stewart