Subspecies

A subspecies is a rank below species in taxonomic classification. In early times it classified animals with differences in morphology based on their ranges and environments. A population with a different color, or general size, skull size, fur length in a different part of their body, or marking placements were all valid reasons to count a population as a different subspecies. Occasionally a difference in behavioral patterns from others of the species may warrant a subspecies, but not always. For example, a tendency to be more social, or having a different prey choice like preferring fish more often than the other populations. Now however scientists may ignore morphological and behavioral differences in favor of how distinctly different their DNA, regardless of whether their DNA makes physical or behavioral differences from others of a population. There is a percentage (maybe 75% from memory) that is needed before they consider it to be a seperate subspecies. There is also the matter of time established, which has become slightly more important. I think that they think a population that changes needs to have been established for a certain period of time, perhaps thousands of years, before it can become validated as a subspecies. But I'm not sure on that.

Sometimes subspecies is considered to be and described as a form of race or ethnicity for animals; however the concept of humans having subspecies is controversial. This is despite the fact that large morphological and DNA differences found in animals that would warrant a subspecies distinction is not permitted by modern society and scientists to apply to *Homo sapiens*. Additionally the issue of most modern humans being crossed with different ethnicities and most subspecies of animals not crossing so often adds another layer to it.

In general most English-speakers focus on species and do not always realize that subspecies exist. All animals are considered to either have no subspecies or at least two. Subspecies can go extinct while another subspecies continues to exist. Animals don't get a rank below subspecies, however plants can have a "*variety"*, and below that, a *"form".*

## Below subspecies

Currently, in many scientific circles there is no rank below subspecies. However, one can occasionally find words that hint that there are. Alternatively these words could be a phrase that contests with the subspecies ranking.

**Ecotype:** This is a word that describes a type within a species that is specifically adapted to a particular environment. The word ecotype may connote that it is "unique" within the population for living in a specific ecosystem compared to other members of its species. However the word is also applied to animals with a diverse range in which no habitat could be said to be the norm for the species.

Other terms such as **morph** or **form** may be used to describe to subspecies as well as non-subspecies. For example a melanistic jaguar morph, or a form of wolf that turns white in the winter.

**My Proposal**

I, Wacape, suggest that we make subspecies the same as any other sub-group in taxonomy. Thus, we have it take the same place as sub-order and sub-family, etc. Then we create a new rank: a local based one. Perhaps we could call it "region", regus or some other fancy Latin or Greek suffix. Or perhaps "locus" for location or Latin's localis, but I think those might already be used. But "local" or "genius loci" are such appealing terms. We could use other Ancient Greek words as is fancy, like περῐοχή (periokhḗ), or πατρίδα (patrída), or ζώνη (zóni), or φῡλή (phūlḗ), or χώρᾱ (khṓrā) We could use Latin's gēns, vīcus, pāgus, stirps, or prōsāpia. Basically, the idea is that a group of animals share physiological and genetic traits with one another that is shared in a certain area. One of the main issues with subspecies is that in its hayday it became known as a way of distinguishing the same species based off of their shared physical features. Then scientists used genetic data and decided that animals that looked different still had enough genetic similarities "to not count or warrant as subspecies by our standards". And when you have two unique groups of animals that look different but are still closely related...there is no longer any way other then mere acknowledgement and detailed descriptions of those distinctions. But I think that those differences are worth becoming a part of taxonomy. Being acknowledged by scientists in a simple, concrete way. One of the other issues is that animals can all share similar features based off of a larger region, but have distinct differences in smaller areas. For example, animals in cities may display a group that features a collection of recessive genes not found in its relatives just outside the city. This is where the *regionus* or *localus* or whatever we decide to call it *lower rank* comes in. For example, the squirrels in Colorado Springs have a tendency to be born with a black phase. That's acceptable as a localus. But its subspecies would then place it amongst many other Colorado squirrels of that species, from those of Denver and Boulder and others where they do not display these differences. Just as with a subfamily or a suborder, subspecies becomes a group-name for a broader purpose. This could also help with the Coastal wolf issue. Scientists have proposed that coastal wolves are genetically distinct and behaviorally different from other wolves (especially in their diets, consuming more berries and fish). However, there are currently three subspecies that would count. One suggestion is to merge them all together, the British Columbian wolves, coastal Alaskan wolves, and Victorian islands wolves. However, with a *regionus*, we can simply define coastal wolves with a subspecies name and then keep all three of these as *regionuses*. Then, we could work on the other issues of wolves, like the clearly distinct-but-nor-formal seperation between North American and Afroeurasiceanic wolves. In this way we can finally allow science to do what it does best- observe nature. We can safely acknowledge that animals of one valley, or one part of the world, or one side of a country, are different physically (and eventually, behaviorally) from their neighbors. That though they will readily breed with them and produce fertile offspring, they are still distinct in their own right way. When scientists are conserving species they will take regional variations into more account then just the few species that are given this blessing (like wolves, giraffes, and tigers). Scientists will take more consideration into preserving attributes that help define a *regionus* and help it survive in that region. They will take into account historical inaccuracies and differences in physical animal populations (I'm thinking specifically of how Italian wolves took over France and look and act more like the rust-and-black slim Beast of Gevaudan than the shier fluffy gray wolves that previously roamed the region) and keep this in mind when trying to preserve animals. We will do more science to acknowledge how animals recognize differences amongst their own kinds in terms of beauty, body patterns, and ethnic groups and other sorts of recognition that can come from *regionus.* While we might never be able to account for all regional differences, the acknowledgement and placement of it into the scientific taxonomic system would benefit conservation, local preservation, and understanding of the animals themselves immensely. I hope that scientists agree to use my idea and give me credit for it.