[Taxacom] Giraffe "cryptic" species????

[Robin Leech]

Hi Ken,

Way back, Merriam worked on rodents.  He did a marvellous
job.  But when he tackled bears in North America, he tried to carry
the same morphological criteria for species (especially tooth morphology)
from rodents to bears.  He failed miserably, and described parents as
different species from their offspring, etc.  He had not re-experienced
himself with bear morphology before he dealved into bear taxonomy.

Now a DNA type could never make that kind of mistake, eh? Yeah.  Right!
Wrong!  DNA types and morphologist types both need to be
steeped in experience for the group(s) they are working on in order to
do a competent job.

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 8:25 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Giraffe "cryptic" species????


> Dear All,
>     There was lots of discussion about cryptic species in the latest
> thread.  Looking at one actual concrete example today, I wonder if the
> phrase "cryptic species" is a bandwagon which is increasing being jumped
> on (but perhaps not always appropriately).
>        The example I was looking at was the giraffe, which in the past
> several years has been branded by some conservationists as a complex of
> MANY different "cryptic" species.  From what I have read so far, one
> could actually easily argue that there are indeed two separate species
> of giraffe (southern and northern) which meet in the area of Kenya
> (where there is a complex and confusing hybrid swarm of sorts).   It is
> just such a middle ground from which I plan to approach the problem.
>      However, a bunch of molecular guys seem more intent on taking it
> further, and claim that there are six or more separate SPECIES of
> giraffe.  Even more disturbing is that they call these "cryptic
> species".  Seems odd to me calling populations that are both
> morphologically distinct (at least in pelage pattern) and somewhat
> genetically distinct as "cryptic".  Polytypic seems a more appropriate
> term than cryptic.
>        Anyway, I am very open to recognizing two separate species of
> giraffe (one southern and the other northern), but as for splitting
> giraffes into a bunch of other separate species, I am rather skeptical.
> There's a lot of variation in pelage pattern and some minor genetic
> differences, but I am VERY concerned that they are going to carry their
> splitting tendencies too far.  One of those typical pendulum swings that
> I really hate to see.
>          ---------Ken Kinman
> P.S.  I can understand that these splitters have conservation concerns.
> However, the two subspecies of giraffe with the lowest population
> numbers (in the north) are already listed as "Endangered".  Trying to
> raise such populations to species status (only subspecies within the two
> giraffe species that I might tend to support) would only marginally
> affect their survivability, and at the same time seems scientifically
> marginal as well.  Their time might be better spent emphasizing the
> importance of saving such endangered subspecies, rather than insisting
> that they are separate species.  Otherwise they risk being marginalized
> when further scientific data shows their splitting to be excessive.  I
> fear that the pendulum continues to swing widely, too often more than is
> good for anyone concerned.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: 
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>