1-3 of 3 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
New subspecies
|
Reply
|
by RichStorey on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can anybody please tell me how you go about proving the existence of a new subspecies. lets just say i already have proof of notable anatomical differences and behaviour, but who do i contact with the information?
cheers
|
|
RE: New subspecies
|
Reply
|
by TAIPAN78 on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Truth be told, most experts working on venomous snake taxonomy tend to lean twords the eratication of sub species. Probally the best person to talk with would be Dr Wolfgang Wuster. He freguents kingsnake and a few of the other forums so try postiing your question there.
BTW, any chance of you shareing which species you belive to have a new ssp and what has led you to that conclusion? Behavioral differences usualy are not enough to warrent sub speices seperation. DNA comparisons are now the most commonly used method in taxonomy (or atleast one of them)and tend to overule poulations which were once belived to be a sub species. Just an FYI
Jeremy
|
|
RE: New subspecies
|
Reply
|
by pH on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, there really isn't a "proof" that you have to go through to naming new species, subspecies, etc. It is more about putting a theory out there and seeing if others agree with it.
What you would need to do is write a paper that describes your methods, data observed, etc. and submit it to a bonafide scientific journal for peer review and publication.
I recommend you find a local professor interested in herpetology and talk with him/her. Talk to them about your data/observations and see what can be done. Writing a paper is a lot of detail, thought and statistics and there are so many ways to use different tests to check for statistical significance now that many departments have a special statistician who is trained in stats for biology-related fields. For example, much of the speciation work today is done with mtDNA and now there are specific tests developed to use to test that (AMOVA). Different tests fit different data better and it depends on how much of a difference you are looking for, your sample size, how you set up your experiments/data, etc.
You also have to look and see if this new subspecies or species was already previously described by someone else. If so, you are not making a new subspecies but making an argument to further support of the work of the person who originally described the differences between the two subspecies or species. Thus, what they named the subpecies or species would take precedence over yours.
Once you submit and get the paper published, that isn't everything. Your changes might not be adopted by scientists, organizations (such as ICZN) or if it is, it might take years for that to happen. Basically, when you submit a paper, you are putting a theory out there for others to read. They may choose to agree with it or not.
Anyway, as someone else mentioned, Dr. Wuster could tell you much more about this and hopefully correct me if I made any incorrections.
|
|
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|