Just a small point on the elephant discussion: Palaeoloxodon is not closely related to Elephas, but is actually from the Loxodonta line. They are also more closely related to cyclotis, then the latter is to africana, which causes a few taxonomic headaches. Should forest elephants be treated as a living member of Palaeoloxodon, or should the straight-tusked elephants be considered a wider ranging Loxodonta? As for the wolf discussion: I have come to the conclusion that Eastern and Red wolves should be treated as an essentially hybrid Grey wolf/coyote population. Whether they have a conservation value is another point entirely. I'm sure if detailed research was aimed at African wolves they might see a similar issue of mixing between Grey wolves and Golden jackals. There is certainly alot of variability within the North African Canis population, with a sliding scale from looking very jackal like up to very wolf like. There seems to be plenty of examples within primates of what appears to be naturally occuring hybrid 'species' (not just hybridisation zones) including Kuhl's marmoset, kipunji and stump-tailed macaque. (There is a nice paper on the net, but I cannot locate it at the moment). Added to this is the multiple occurances of prehistorical hybridisation of Homo sapiens with close relatives. Are we not just seeing another example of a hybrid swarm with red wolves?
I had been under the impression, and I don't have a source and please don't mistake this for me pushing a theory on a subject I do not claim to understand, that the red wolf's existence was not seen as mostly not ambiguous, but that there was serious concern the modern population had avoided a direct bottleneck by hybridizing with other canids, and that this gradually 'polluted' the modern population. It sounds that the current theory eliminates that a pure red wolf population ever existed to begin with and suggests the entire population has always been born of hybrids. This is what often worries me with studies that propose the elimination of known species/subspecies; whether or not the conclusions are scientifically accurate is somewhere I can mostly trust the experts to know better, while recognizing the definition of 'species' may be shifting slightly. However, I greatly fear that these ideas will be misused to de-legitimize conservation of these eliminated species, especially by those who view conservation as a strategic allocation of minimal resources. I expressed this concern in the thread on the proposed alterations to tiger taxonomy as well. The idea the red wolf is not genetically distinct, or that certain tigers are not genetically distinct, could reduce the urgency among some to protect them, or a willingness to interbreed and mingle genes from groups long preserved separately, which could become problematic if taxonomy shifts again later, as we've seen in the overpopulation of mixed breed ostriches and lions in some zoos. Essentially, I worry greatly that a conclusion the red wolf is not a pure and distinct species (or subspecies) may lead some to believe the population is not worth saving. This is my only two cents on the subject.
My own view is that natural hybridisation in the wild needs to be considered separately from any incidental cross-breeding of species or sub-species in captivity. If we were to look at Asian elephant, the entire species is under immense threat, and while captive breeding seems to be occuring regularly on a global level the threat of the herpes virus means that a self-sustaining captive population is not assured. Do the recognised sub-species have enough differences to be maintained as individual units or should we effectively amalgamate them as one population? Has there been historical mixing in the past, making it a moot point? Makes for a tricky scenario to manage in the future. Back to red wolves - we don't know if the population has any unique genes that would warrant saving the species, or do we (I don't know the answer to it)? One would think a combination of mixing with local coyote population, followed a bottleneck would suggest otherwise. Are resources better placed into preserving the 'pure' Mexican grey wolf? Was the grey wolf that led to the red wolf population, closely related to/the same as the Mexicans? An interesting point of conservation ethics... to save or not.
I think one thing you might be missing here is that the Coyotes the Red Wolf and Eastern Wolf are hybridizing with are not "local", or native. Historically Coyotes were absent from much of North America including the entirety of both wolves' ranges apart from eastern Texas which was the range limit for both Coyote and Red Wolf. Coyotes only spread out and mixed with the other taxa after the Grey Wolves were extirpated from the US and much of Canada. The above map gives a pretty good summary of the expansion over time, and how recent it was that these animals really took over the continent. What this map does not show is how the species is even starting to appear along the border of North and South America. I believe their southward expansion is a result of the fragmentation of the rainforest creating more suitable habitats for them but I could be wrong on that. This is a slightly lesser quality map that has an exaggerated historic Coyote range and incomplete Eastern Wolf range since they used to live throughout New England as well, but it does a good job of showing how the Coyotes native range barely interacted with that of the two questioned wolf taxa. Obviously the creator's of this map are of the opinion that both rufus and lycaon are nothing more than lupusXlatrans hybrids, though. ~Thylo
I didn't realise that the coyote historical range was as restricted as the maps indicate, although I knew about the gradual spread into Central America. Always thought that they were the constant underling to the larger wolves. Interestingly it appears that coyotes were more widespread during the latest Pleistocene, including Florida and California. Possibly a reflection of modern grey wolves expansion and retreat within North America.
Yeah that's why I never really bought into the idea that lycaon and rufus are nothing more than hybrids. Maybe there is some sort of hybridization in their evolution, as seen with species like Pere David's Deer, but the fact is these taxa, especially lycaon never naturally came into contact with Coyotes much. As I believe I've mentioned before, lupus and latrans do not readily hybridize in the wild, while lycaon and rufus will readily hybridize with both lupus and latrans. To some, this would support a hybrid origin theory, but to me it suggests clear separation from lupus and speciation in its own right. ~Thylo
While reading up on taxonomy to further understand it, I came up to this article about "bad" scientists known as taxonomic vandals, which, in my perspective, sounds like taxonomic copyright.
I was laughing through part of the article, he petitioned just to name a species after his wife . What work did he do? Spoiler: Might offend people?? It's like Trump having valid reasons to rename America to "Trumperica"! I wonder who Erica is....
The first time I read through the above article, I knew it was a serious problem, but I couldn't help but laugh at some of the absolutely ridiculous names he's come up with. ~Thylo
Who names thousands of species found by others for themselves? Though, it doesn't seem hard to come up with names. Just add "i" or "is" or "tis" or "us" to the end of two words. For example discussioni taxonomus. I mean, that's pretty lit.
I know you're at least half-joking but it's more complicated than that. There are rules, or at least unofficial ones, to how you're allowed to name things. In a sense, yes you can name it randomly like that. We have a gibbon named after Luke Skywalker, but in general it's preferable if the names actually mean something to the species. Dracorex hogwartsia is a good example of a fun one that's more sensible because it translates to "the dragon king of Hogwarts" but still makes a bit of sense because the skull reminds people of dragons (and in some cases, convinces people that dragons were real and the museums are covering them up, but that's a conversation for another day). As the article I linked mentions, you're also supposed to give a relatively easy to say/remember name. It's also considered pretty bad form to name something after yourself or something associated with you (ie your dog, or your wife- the latter of which is essentially a masked way of naming it after yourself and the former is really bad especially when your dog is itself named after an animal). ~Thylo
So you are to create an easy to remember name, but at the same time, the name has to translate in some way to the common name?
Not necessarily - for instance the taxonomic name of the Fishing Cat translates to "Ferret-like Saw Cat" In any case, quite apart from anything else, many herp/fish/invert species never have a common name.
Not to the common name, those don't really matter much from a scientific standpoint. It's just good form if the scientific name translates into a rough description of the animal you're naming. It doesn't have to, but it's preferable. ~Thylo
As an example: Cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus. Acinonyx is a combination of the greek words for "motionless" and "claw", while jubatus means "maned". The cheetah's claws don't retract, unlike other non-panthera cats, and young cheetahs have a thick ruff/mane on their neck and shoulders.
The Latin of the four-horned antelope is Tetracerus (Greek for 'four horn') quadricornis (Latin for 'four horn') - so good,they named it twice.
There are thousands of species whose binomial use Latin for the genus and Greek for the species or the contrary. Cervus elaphus, Equus caballus, or adding a little adjetive (golden) even Aquila chrysaetos... I wonder why Hoser's work seems so ridiculous and hilarious to Zoochatters while all the other thousands of nonsense slipts and changes in modern taxonomy doesn't, to the pont to attack or try to ridiculize whatever doesn't accept them (despite the very important principle of taxonomic freedom what is mentioned in the article). It's just because it's made by only one author in a too short amount of time (so a question of "equilibrium in quantity"), or instead, it's because the names he uses are too non-standard? (many valid binomial names are not typical, and when they're susbtantives, they even doesn't need to be latinized, so again would be a question of equilibrium). Ot it's because he names species after non-scientific people (many authors dedicated species to familiars of the discoverer instead the discovered himself) or even non-people? I of course don't defend Hose anyway and his taxonomic additions looks like ridiculous for me too. It's just that I find the same (just not so exaggeratedly) also for many other of the changes that are accepted and followed strictly by most Zoochatters and done by other authors. Then, I never corrected anybody for use these new schemes instead the old ones that in many cases seems much more logic, despite have being "corrected" on several occasions in this forum for not use them for myself!
Of course that I defend, just the Hoser's link is completely unrelated to taxonomic copyrights as far as I can see. Taxonomic vandalism is to rename an already known species for be left as the author, despite knowing that the species is already described and have a former author. What Hoser's does, if I underestood correctly, is split tons of taxa in an exaggerated quantity and very short amount of time and put them strange names not in the usual construction of scientific names, and also name these taxa honouring non-scientific people and even non-people. Not the same that take a know taxon and just change its name.
