In the past minimum variety in 2 species gave origin to subspecies, but nowadays when a botanist observes a very small difference between 2 species he/she gives immediately the name of a new species, is it because publishing a paper dealing with new species has more value of publishing e data of subspecies?
To me everything depends of course on the taxonomic criterium of researchers. In some cases taxonomic rank is a matter of preference, though several 'rules' (not universal) exist to give rank to new taxa, which mostly depends on the different international 'schools' of Botany. Most of European botanists usually apply the 'subspecies' rank to populations of a 'species' with constant morphological differences that are associated to distinct geographical areas (e.g. 'geographical subspecies' or in the past referred as 'geographical races') and/or ecological conditions (the same applies: 'ecological subspecies' or in the past 'ecological races'). In some cases, when pollination or phenological factors act, some 'ethological subspecies' were accepted (e.g. in bee-pollinated Ophrys taxa). The 'variety' rank is usually applied for minor morphological changes into populations of a given species/subspecies, in which no geographical or ecological patterns are clearly outlined. And finally the 'form' rank is sometimes attachd to particular individual variations that mostly correspond to mere genetic expression of characters (e.g. albine individuals, or monstruosus plants. etc.). But I insist: this is not universally followed. In the Americas, the subspecies rank was not so profusely used, and most of varieties in American floras would be interpreted as subspecies in other areas (this is not true in all cases, but to me it works in general terms). Of course, as you say it is difficult today to publish taxa in ranks different to species (unless you are reviewing a whole group). But I really believe that the rank to apply to a supposedly new taxon should be chosen only after achieving a clear general view of the concerned group (with most of available data on hand, e.g. morphologic, geogaphic, chromosomal, or even phylogenetic). Sometimes, when one has not data enough, the species rank is the most 'neutral' one (this being perhaps contradictory), since otherwise you have to be sure that subordination to any existing taxon implies a true risk (e.e. morphological affinity can be only due to convergence).
However, the very definition of speceies is much debated. A predominant point of view suggests that a true species has gene flow ocurring among it's populations and is isolated form other populations.
If botanists (or any other biologist, for that matter) tend to describe new entities as species based solely on appearance, without checking the amount of genetic flow, we'll soon have a inflated amount of species that are actually subspecies, variations of forms (which Manuel Crespo explained very well the differences).
I think that unfortunately describing a new "species" has more impact on the scientific community and so Journals and scientists alike tend to describe these new taxa as new species. It then take some insane and continuous work by serious taxonimists to review and organize these taxonomical entities in their ranks. Of course, each specialist have his/her own opinions on what is the correct rank for each taxon, so of course it's not that simple.
There are lots of great papers on the subject of definition os species, both operational and epistemological (almost philosophical).
Publication of a manuscript on sub-species bears little significance rather than a script on species. In fact identification of a plant as totally a different species should be ably supported by chemical, biochemical and molecular data. As a matter of fact, nucleotide sequencing, chromosome banding and protein profile are very much needed as evidence to support a new species, besides Phylogenetic Tree to bring out the overall gene pool relationship. These data are ver much needed when a new species concept is arrived at and that too when the manuscript is to find a place in highly impacted Journal. A new species identified by some one need not be a new species altogether unless otherwise confirmed by others
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology