Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:36:32 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi all
The discussion of capensis vs scutellata bees has taken me on a trip back thru the paperwork. This, by Hepburn & Radloff, is amusing while being instructive (I know, it is refuted by newer work):
> The inescapable conclusion is that although honeybees may be “frog-marched” into subspecific categories with formal trinomial scientific names, these categories are of necessity artefactual and seriously obfuscate the biological ranges of naturally occurring characters.
> Such categories cannot be natural kinds because they have no unique properties. Alternatively, the honeybees of southern Africa can be further subdivided and refined into some 40-odd “groups” but this would merely further cloud what is after all a genetically continuous population.
> At present, the only way the term or name “A. m. capensis” (or A. m. scutellata for that matter) can be accurately meaningful is to precisely qualify a bee’s geographical point of origin.
Apis mellifera capensis: an essay on the subspecific classification of honeybees. Apidologie 33 (2002) 105–127
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|