The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
1956
The Lepidopterists' Neivs
207
ON THE SUBSPECIES CONCEPT IN TAXONOMY by Sergius G. Kiriakoff
Referring to the discussion by van Son (1955) and Forbes (1956), I should like to add a few words on certain aspects of the subspecies problem.
First of all, it cannot be enough emphasized that there are several kinds of subspecies, not to speak of the taxon called semispecies that occupies, in a two-dimensional hierarchical scheme, an intermediate position between the subspecies and the species. Readers of the News may remember that I gave several years ago (Kiriakoff, 1948 a-c) a short review of the taxonomical aspect of the specific complex, with a scheme based for a great part on suggestions by J. S. Huxley. Circumstances prevented me from presenting my scheme to the Copenhagen entomological congress which I intended to do although fully aware of the very few chances of its being accepted. Too many people still are typologically minded, and the new phylogenetical spirit is only beginning to show itself, even in West Europe. All the same, I should like to emphasize once more that there is not much sense in applying the same taxonomical treatment to geographical, ecological, and cytological races and to semispecies. That applies, on a higher level, to full species and to ultraspecies sensu KIRIAKOFF (1948c) and Schindler (1952), not Mayr, et al. (superspecies, 1953
Professor Forbes is basically right when speaking of the difficulties in connection with the size of the various taxa. The difficulty lies not alone with the prevailing typological thought: even those who believe in the phylogenetical postulate of the objective reality of the taxa, are aware that in practice most of the groups we are using are "purely arbitrary" as FORBES says, at least in respect to their size. That, however, in no way affects the principle referred to.
Regarding Forbes's suggestion 1 (I.e.: 36), it would seem very satisfactory should there exist the geographical subspecies alone. If we consider e.g. the races of endoparasitic organisms, we find it rather awkward to describe "blocks of material"; shifts of "type localities" suggested by Forbes would face the same difficulty. To have done with FORBES's suggestions, I should like to add that I quite agree in principle with his last one, because in my paper referred to above, and in several other publications, I had suggested various symbols interpolated between the allotaxonic names of a form.
Before treating the last and most important point of the whole matter, I should like to turn again for a moment to the various kinds of "subspecies". Most people still consider the geographical moment as the "true diagnostics 1 character" of a subspecies, I believe under the influence of Dr. MAYR, although I find the opinion of that leading authority to be somewhat less rigid in his 1953 book than in his previous works. I believe one of the reasons of this general attitude is a confusion between the "geographical" and "chorological" concepts; the latter is much broader as it includes every aspect of the spatial
208
KlRIAKOFF: Subspecies concept
Vol.10: no.6
factor. Perhaps, a better understanding could be reached by using the term "chorological" instead of "geographical" race. That would include e.g. the whole host of endo- and exoparasites in the concept, and would permit avoiding the nonsense of treating e.g. the races of intestinal parasites as "geographical subspecies".
The important point referred to above concerns the International Commission's definition of the subspecies. It is quite irrelevant that the definition itself may be a good or a bad one. The "real issue", to use Huxley's phrase (in quite another case), is the fact that a commission entrusted with work on nomenclature has seen fit to give the definition of a taxon. I must admit that, as far as I am aware, most people seem to find such proceedings quite natural and eventually only discuss the wordings of the definition. I find it amazing that nobody has ever realized the danger of such proceedings, as a precedent. In my recent handbook on Systematic Zoology (1956: 120) I have pointed out the arbitrariness of the Commission's doings. Here is the translation of what I wrote: "In this case the Commission has conspicuously transgressed the boundaries of its rights and of its competence: its task consists in finding purely formal reglementations for nomenclatorial questions; definitions of taxa should be left to taxonomists whose dealings are under their own responsibility; the International Commission has no right whatsoever to cover with its authority purely scientific definitions". I believe the last point is the most important because literature shows very distinctly most people take the Commission's definition as something "formal" or even "binding". That it cannot be, and moreover the doings of the Commission have a dictatorial air that no taxono-mist should tolerate. Nomenclatorial decisions should be accepted by everybody, even against one's better judgement; but a line must be drawn somewhere, and in the present case the doings of the Commission are definitely beyond that line. The authors of the definition probably are better zoologists than I am, but on that occasion they were very conspicuously trespassing, and one feels justified to call out: "Sutor nee supra crepidam!"
References
Forbes, W. T. M., 1956. On the limiting of subspecies. Lepid. News 10: 35-36. Kiriakoff, S. G., 1948a. Taxonomie et speciation: la semi-espece et la super-espece.
Bull. & Ann. Soc. Ent. Belgique 84: 64-70.
....... , 1948b. On the so-called "lower" taxonomie categories. Lepid. News 2: 3-4.
....... , 1948c. The nomenclature of the specific complex. Lepid. News 2: 3-4.
... , 1956. Beginnselen der Dierkundige Systematiek. Antwerp. Mayr, E., E. G. Linsley, R. L. Usinger, 1953. Methods and principles of systematic
zoology. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 328 pp. Schilder, F. A., 1952. Einfuhrung in die Biotaxonomie {Eormenkreislehre). Jena. van Son, G., 1955. A proposal for the restriction of the use of the term subspecies.
Lepid. News 9: 1-3.
Zoological Laboratories, Ghent University, 14 Universiteitsstraat, Ghent, BELGIUM