Splitter or Lumper? What are you

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JasonL

Almost Legendary
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
9,936
Reaction score
2
Location
Hobbiton, Middle Earth.
With some of the current threads of late relating to sub species / species of snakes. I thought it may be benificial for some people to have a read and think about the meanings of these words, and how / where these snakes fit into these meaning...take from it what you will


"Species" Oxford Dictionary of Zoology meaning;
Literally, a group of organisms that resemble one another closely. The Latin name for "species" means 'appearance' or 'semblance'. In taxonomy, it is applied to one or more groups (populations) of individuals that can interbreed within the group but do not, under natural conditions, exchange genes with other groups (populations); It is an interbreeding group of biological organisms that is isolated reproductively from all other organisms. A species can be made up of groups in which members do not actually exchange genes with members of other groups (though in principle they could do so), as e.g. at the two extremes of a continuous geographical range. However, if some gene flow occurs along a continuum, the formation of another species is unlikely to occur. Where barriers to gene flow arise (e.g. physical barriers, such as sea, or areas of unfavourable habitat) this reproductive isolation may lead either by local selection or by random genetic drift to the formation of morphologically distinct forms ('races' or 'subspecies'). These could interbreed with other races of the same species if they were introduced to one another. Once this potential is lost, through some further evolutionary divergence, the races may be recognized as species, although this concept is not a rigid one. Most species cannot interbreed with others; a few can but produce infertile offspring; a smaller number may actually produce fertile offspring. The term cannot be applied precisely to organisms whose breeding behaiviour is unknown.

"Subspecies" Oxford Dictionary of Zoology meaning;
Technically, a race of a species that is allocated a Latin name. The number of races recognized within a species and the allocation of names to them is somewhat arbitary. Systematic and phenotypic variations do occur within species, but there are no clear rules for identifying them as races or subspecies except they must be: (a) geographically distinct; (b) populations, not merely morphospecies; and (c) different to some degree from other geographic populations.


So.... are you a Splitter, Lumper or fence sitter..... or do you just have no idea at all.
 
Until you can get defintions for these words that are exact and accepted i dont see how much can be said with certainty. I think nature is more complex than current taxonomy allows for, not everything can easily grouped into neat categories.
 
Until you can get defintions for these words that are exact and accepted i dont see how much can be said with certainty. I think nature is more complex than current taxonomy allows for, not everything can easily grouped into neat categories.

So your a Splitter? ;)
 
Jason. Noooooooooooooooo! Don't open the can! You will loose all your worms.

For the record. I am a fence sitter.
 
As far as i'm concerned I have absolutely no right to pass judgement either way, I've only ever seen a handful of wild pythons compared to others that have spent their life studying them & don't see how any of us hobby keepers can contribute anything to the splitting/ lumping argument. I will leave that to the experts;)
 
lumper....
funnily enough i was teaching species concept to year 12 this morning.
i dont even really believe in species as defined above (based on mayr's?)...
it is a term that has some relevance at a particular time i guess, for allowing us to classify organisms in an arbitrary manner, but over geologic time scales it is meaningless, all life has a common ancestry and we are part of the same vast bioblob/continuum when viewed in four dimensions.
 
As far as i'm concerned I have absolutely no right to pass judgement either way, I've only ever seen a handful of wild pythons compared to others that have spent their life studying them & don't see how any of us hobby keepers can contribute anything to the splitting/ lumping argument. I will leave that to the experts;)

Get your point, but like anything on this earth, it is OK to have a view, APS is far from a scientific paper ;), but you certainly can have a view not to comment if you wish. I'm not really asking the question, just think it is good for people to have a look at the meanings...always good to get peoples brains ticking... the question was just for fun.
 
lumper....
funnily enough i was teaching species concept to year 12 this morning.
i dont even really believe in species as defined above (based on mayr's?)...
it is a term that has some relevance at a particular time i guess, for allowing us to classify organisms in an arbitrary manner, but over geologic time scales it is meaningless, all life has a common ancestry and we are part of the same vast bioblob/continuum when viewed in four dimensions.

Yes, I agree with you Jack, a name is just a name, and a python sitting in a tree looking for a feed doesn't know it and doesn't care, sometimes I think it's funny we do so much.
 
Fair enough Jas, i'm personally finding the whole thing really confusing (I know i'm not alone)& wish there was an easy answer. I'm definately on the fence:)
 
In terms of species, I'm a lumper - to the extent that I use "same species" to describe the ability to mate and produce fertile offspring. Any definition of species beyond this is insufficiently well defined IMO. The concept of sub-species is even less well defined IMO. I try to think in terms of genetically isolated populations, rather than either species or sub-species. I think that this concept, much more than species or sub-species, is meaningful in the wild world, even if it can sometimes be difficult to demonstrate for some populations in practice. For the purposes of breeding and showing captive animals, I think breed standards (as with captive/pet dogs, cats and budgies) would be much a much more practical classification system than sub-species or locality designators.
 
I couldnt give two forks about any new papers and what not, not saying I am taking the old as gospel either.... to me its all in locale.... a splitter mating animals from the extreme ends of the old texts range is as good as a lumper.
 
seriously, seems in half the threads on here, people draw the line via the replies..... be big enough to own your convictions and post your input here....
 
Im a former splitter, now commited lumper. The splitter vs lumper debate has been gong on since someone decided to start classifying things, and will forever go on. Even with the ongoing advances in DNA evidence the splitters will dismiss anything that suggest they should be lumped together and the lumpers will dismiss anything that dont sit with their view. Maybe if there was an agreement between what exactly is a species, and the degree of difference needed between closely related organisms; the arguements would stop. I think people get too carried away with anything that has a slight difference or variation. For me, there can be ecological variations within the species, and still be one species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top