I find this discussion on sub species quite confusing. I had already
concluded that my previous understanding of what qualifies as a distinct
species and what qualifies as a subspecies needed to be reviewed but the
discussion doesn't seem to have helped. Perhaps someone will be able to
explain in simple English the following conundrum:
I read recently that Grizzly bears are now interbreeding with Polar
bears and producing fertile offspring. According to my old notion of
what constitutes a species that makes the two bears the same species.
They still have different names though and I haven't seen any headlines
proclaiming that they are now considered to be the same. Are they still
different species? If so why and and why are not Italian bees
considered different species to my North European Dark bees? Perhaps
the bears are different subspecies of the same species. If so that
seems to make the difference in subspecies particularly significant as I
can't imagine a grizzly thriving at the extreme North of the Polar's
range any more than I can imagine Italian bees thriving without
significant amounts of beekeeper help at the extremes of the dark bee's
range. If that is true why are bee subspecies being considered less
significant. I accept that defining the minutiae of the difference
between subspecies is difficult but that would not mean that subspecies
don't exist or don't matter.
Steve Rose in the mountains of North Wales where soft bees fail.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
***********************************************
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
