Talk:Subspecies

message: Not really disputed so much as just really unclear....
"In taxonomy, a subspecies is the taxon immediately subordinate to a species. Members of one subspecies differ morphologically but sometimes only genetically from members of other subspecies of the species."
"but sometimes only genetically"????
What's that supposed to mean?  Is it meant to say "sometimes not genetically"???
--Blackcats 19:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue.  Many nucleotide polymorphisms can have no phenotypic/morphological effect; e.g. see neutral mutations. --DAD T 05:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUH?!!... 

message: I have a question if you lets say have many varietys of sharks living on the U.S. west coast all belong in the same family but the Northern ones cant mate with the southerners but both groups can mate with the central group and, there is no clear line between groups. how will this be grouped  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.177.250 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like primary intergradation. --Jwinius (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: Honestly, the last part of this article is just wrong.  Unfortunately, interbreeding is not a clear-cut means of defining species taxonomically.  It was long thought that different species that succeeded in reproducing would produce only sterile offspring--but we now know that is definitely untrue.  The production of fertile offspring (consistantly fertile) from a pairing of milk and corn  snakes proves this.  These animals aren't only different species--they're not even in the same genus!  (Lampropeltis spp. and Pantherophis guttata).  We've also discovered that some hybrid pairings produce sterile animals only part of the time.  It's rare to find a fertile mule, but it has happened.  More commonly, ligers and tigons (tiger/lion hybrids) have been found to be fertile.  So this section needs to be changed to reflect the reality--at the very least, it must be mentioned that this is not a reliable indicator of species.
--WingedWolf 10:31 AM mtn, 10 April, 2006
like all chickens being birds but not all birds being chickens no one said that species cant interbreed with other species. Being in a species only means they can breed with others of the same species  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.177.250 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrids and species definitions 

message: I've just redirected "Nominate subspecies" here. In addition, I believe there are a number of synonyms for this term:
* Nominate race
* Nominate form
* Typical form
* Nominotype
* Nominate
I'm sure the first two are okay, but how about the other ones? --Jwinius 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll answer this myself: they're all okay, except for "nominotype." It seems I made this one up myself, having subconsciously derived it from the term "nominotypical." For a while, I used "nominotype" in a number of the Viperidae articles I was writing, but then got suspicious, discovered my error and replaced it. However, that was not before a number of other sites (i.e. answers.com) had copied those articles. Now it seems that there's even an academic paper out there that's uses this bogus term. Or, it "nominotype" actually an obscure, but correct term after all? --Jwinius 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate subspecies

message: I moved this section (below) to the talk page because it contradicts and/or replicates the rest of the article. If someone who understands population genetics better than I do sees items in this section that should go back into the article, please weave them back in.
:Subspecies: a taxonomic subdivision of a species. A group of organisms whose behavior and/or genetically encoded morphological and physiological characteristics differ from those of other members of their species. Members of different subspecies of the same species are potentially capable of breeding with each other and of producing fertile offspring. However, animals of different species may not interbreed even if there is no geographical impediment. Differences in appearance and behavior often prevent members of different species from recognizing each other as potential sex partners. This is especially true for animals with complicated sexual rituals. Members of different species are either incapable of reproducing, or will produce infertile offspring.
Twisted86 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important difference between species and subspecies 

message: I hope this may clarify a few things if no-ones mentioned it already. (I’m speaking from a botanist’s point of view here, so forgive me if it conflicts with zoological taxonomy.) This isn't meant to be an exact description of all of these concepts, but more of an example of how they may be applied in real situations.
‘Subspecies’ is a formal taxonomic rank below the rank of species, outlined by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. It is generally applied to groups of organisms within a species which are genetically or morphologically differentiated from one another, sufficiently so to recognise them as distinct groups. Whether or not organisms belonging to a subspecies within a species can interbreed with other subspecies will depend on the organisms in question; and this is not generally used to define what constitutes a subspecies (particularly in plant groups where hybridisation may be possible). 
The decision to circumscribe subspecies may be based on a number of factors, including morphological or genetic differentiation, which may result from geographic disjunction, or habitat differences, amongst other things; and generally subspecies are thought to represent distinct evolutionary lineages that may be islolated, reproductively, from other subspecies; therefore, the line between species and subspecies can often be difficult to establish. Species are generally thought to be dynamic, and under the influence of micro-evolutionary processes (i.e. gene flow, genetic drift etc), and therefore subspecies may represent, in some situations, groups of organisms in the process of speciation. For the most part, there are no clear rules regarding ‘cut-off points’ of genetic or morphological differentiation to tell us when subspecies should be treated as species or vice versa; so it is often left up to the judgement of the taxonomist to make these distinctions based on all of the available data. Generally, though, there will be a certain amount of overlap among two subspecies (in terms of morphology, etc), which would prevent the taxonomist from confidently treating them as distinct species. 
In practice, taxonomists make decisions on the circumscription of groups within a species based on a number of lines of evidence; e.g. morphology, genetic similarity, anatomy, cytology etc. While subspecies do not always represent distinct evolutionary lineages within a species, it is a useful rank for classifying and conceptualising sub-specific groups, which can have broader application for, for example, biodiversity conservation. Taxonomic revisions within many groups of organisms occur all of the time, and the addition of new data often results in rank changes or new circumscriptions, e.g. a species may be split into several different species; subspecies may be raised to species rank etc; so these groups are not static.  
Idealistically, one of the goals of taxonomy is to produce a system of classification which reflects evolutionary history; however, this does not always happen, nor is it always appropriate. But this is a huge area of debate, and not worth going into here.
‘Variety’ is another taxonomic rank subordinate to ‘subspecies’, and is most commonly used in botany, though not as often these days. Today, the variety rank is typically used to classify groups/populations of plants which may be somewhat morphologically distinct from other members of the species; however, this may not need to have any genetic basis. Often varieties of plants within a species may be morphologically distinct due to phenotypic changes resulting from differences in habitat, and so the ‘variety’ rank can be useful for circumscribing groups of organisms occupying different ecological niches to the remaining members of the species. Again, this definition is fairly simplified, and generally it’s left up to the taxonomist to decide what should and shouldn’t be described as distinct varieties within their study organisms. Historically, some taxonomists working with a particular species used only the variety rank to circumscribe infraspecific groups; others used only ‘subspecies’; and often there was no clear distinction drawn between the two ranks. While this distinction is debatable, taxonomists tend to stick with the rank that previous workers have used to reduce confusion. For example, within the family of plants I work with, only the variety rank has been used, so I am inclined to keep with this tradition. Also, changing between the two could create problems with name priority.
‘Race’, on the other hand, is not a formal taxonomic rank in botany (and indeed is not commonly used in botany), along with other informal group terms such as ‘morphotype’, ‘morph’, etc.. These terms are typically used to define groups within a species with some minor morphological difference (e.g. a population of plants with slightly different coloured petals to the remainder of the plants within the species), or genetic difference (for example a difference in a single microsatellite locus), which makes it stand out from other members of the species. As species often display some amount of morphological variability across their geographical range, slight differences in some populations are generally not considered sufficient evidence to warrent their formal recognition. These terms, therefore, are often used by biologists/taxonomists, when a formal rank should not be given, or if it is unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given. ‘Cultivar’ is generally used among horticulturalists, when new ‘species’ are artificially created; however, cultivar names do have their own nomenclatural rules. ‘Strain’ is generally used for bacteria or other microbes, I believe, but that’s not my area. ----  Andy C 1 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Subspecies vs. varieties vs. non-formal ranks (A botanical perspective)

message: The intro says it applies to zoology only, while one of the examples under the Criteria section refers to the shape of the leaves. StuRat 06:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaves in zoology ? 

message: The article says: "For an example of a subspecies, see Pied Wagtail."  I love the idea of giving a specific example, but that page is now a redirect to the species, not a separate page for the subspecies.  Do you think that we could get an example that has its own page on wikipedia instead? — NEric Herboso 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad example choice 

message: In its current form, this article states that "A subspecies is a taxonomic group which is less distinct than the primary stock or species from which it originates" and refers to "...the primary species or nominate form..." If this is correct, would it be accurate to say that the nominate subspecies, being the primary stock, is the most representative form of the species? Or, perhaps even that the nominate subspecies is the species? --Jwinius (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a serious misconception, and the article needs correction. The question of which is the nominate form and which is a subspecies is purely an artefact of nomenclature, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the biology or evolution of the species. The nominate form is simply the form that has been scientifically described (i.e., named) first. Other differentiated populations that are regarded as conspecific, but were named later, then become subspecies of the former. This says nothing about which is a "prinicpal" form, which is most differentiated, or which is derived from which.  Caissaca (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a feeling that would turn out to be the case. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Currently it says nothing about what the significance of a nominate subspecies is. Just how the scientific name of a nominate species is structured. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary stock 

message: Are these two point correct?:
1) If we identify a new species, that group also becomes the nominate subspecies.  So before there were any subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus, there was only Canis lupus lupus.  No individual can be a member of a species without being a member of a subspecies.  Thus, no individuals are Canis lupus unless they are Canis lupus X, where X is one of any of the many subspecies.  A subspecies that diverges is still a member of the species, so a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a Grey Wolf (Canis lupus). When one says that the species was the ancestor of the subspecies (i.e., the grey wolf is the ancestor of the dog), they are being imprecise; The ancestor of a subspecies was also a subspecies (e.g., the ancestor of the dog wasn't the grey wolf, but a particular subspecies of the grey wolf, such as the European Wolf).  
2) The nominate subspecies doesn't hold a priveleged position; it was just the first identified.  So it is possible that canis lupus dingo diverged from canis lupus lupus, or its possible that canis lupus lupus diverged from canis lupus dingo (in theory, considering only the names).  The nominate subspecies is not necessarily the oldest member of the species.
Thanks for the clarification --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The discussion about merging race and subspecies was inactive for a year. They are different categories, as clearly explained by an expert above. I made a few changes to further clarify the difference. If anyone objects removal of the tags, please explain why here.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Can someone insert a concise definition of subspecies in the lead section? The style guide specifies that the lead section serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects and should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. 
This article needs a phrase in the lead like "Subspecies classification is assigned where a species has distinct population groups that do not interbreed either through morphology or genetics, although they could do so under different environmental circumstances" Chalky (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They usually can interbreed (but do not interbreed due to geographic isolation). Otherwise, they would be assigned as different species.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not possible to give a definition, believe me, I work in the area! Even a species can't be precisely defined, and the matter is referred to as "the species problem". If it were as simple as "they don't interbreed", then every asexual individual would be its own species, and there are other problems besides. Sorry. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes. Biophys (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: This text from Race (human classification) seems like it might be more useful here:
:Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the seventy-five percent rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The seventy-five percent rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with ninety or ninety-five percent rule.
--Carwil (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text from [[Race (human classification)]] 

message: is subspecies which is the species has nearly same apperance???? is that it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebu Flowerpecker (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies Nearly same appearance? 

message: When articles use specialized terminology or forms it is hard for the casual reader to know what the heck is going on. What should be a straight-forward description becomes 'Greek'.
The article mentions Trinomen in passing, and has an attempt at demonstrating three names for a subspecies. But does that really help the confused reader trying to figure out what "M. t. macronyx" or "Q. l. lugubris" means?
I suppose the fourth paragraph of Trinomen is supposed to reveal all, but this nomenclature seems inbred / cryptic. Shenme (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tend to agree that reducing the two part name of the species to initials can be confusing, and we don't need to save paper here. On the other hand, I can't agree that the article only mentions "trinomen" in passing. It's clearly set out in the sentence beginning "The scientific name of a subspecies is termed trinomen, which comprises three words ..." If you think you can explain it more clearly, please go ahead. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A three-legged stool with one long leg 

message: Notice that Subspecies is not interpreted in relation to Species as for example Subfamily in relation to Family.
Subspecies are usually interpreted as a level below the Species, such as Gender in relation to Family.  93.102.49.186 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies 

message: Scary. I feel bad for the people who have to regurgitate this orthodoxy to pass a test at a university.
"Subspecies" is the exact word that describes human races but using it seems to have been denied.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.58.23 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not ! Just read the definition again: the term subspecies refers to a unit of a species that has been geographically isolated for a long time. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And you would usually expect crosses between subspecies to show some evidence of changes in fertility compared to crosses within subspecies, since the rank of subspecies is often used where there is movement towards distinct species. There's certainly no evidence of that in human population groups. The clincher is, as is well known, that genetic differences between human populations don't correspond to socially defined "races": most of the genetic diversity is within Africa; humans outside Africa are exceptionally genetically uniform, regardless of superficial differences in appearance. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The failure to apply the "subspecies" concept to humans... just political correctness?