words per minute
14
Chi6
00:00
Speed
Take ants and butterflies. Ant experts have recently been waging a war against all types of species subdivision. Lepidopterists, on the other hand, cling to the double barrel second names from their discipline's 19th-century tradition, and categorize many local subclasses within species found over wide areas. Thus, it would be futile - if one were so inclined - to attempt to compare the diversity of ant and butterfly populations.
The traditional way around the problem is to call a species all members of a group that share the same gene pool. They can mate together and produce fertile offspring. Whether Indonesian clouded leopards can make cubs with continental ones remains unknown but seems probable. Instead, the claim this week is that genetics and slight differences in fur patterning are enough to justify rebranding the clouded leopard as two significant types. Genetically, that makes sense if many DNA variations correlate perfectly between members of the two groups. The authors did find some correlation, but they looked for it in only three Indonesian animals. A larger sample would have been more difficult.
One thing is abundantly clear: conservationists who are trying to stop the destruction of the leopards' habitat in Borneo and Sumatra see the announcement of a new species of big cat as a means to gain publicity and political capital. Upgrading subspecies to species is a strategy which James Mallet, of University College London, likes to call species inflation. It is a common by-product of genetic analysis, which can reveal differences between populations that the eye cannot. Creating ever more detailed genetic categories means creating smaller and increasingly restricted populations of more species. The trouble is that risks devaluing the importance of the term "species".
The problem of redefining species by genetics is the creation of taxonomic confusion, a potentially serious difficulty for conservationists and others. The recent proposal to add the polar bear to the list of animals protected under America’s Endangered Species Act is an example. That seems all well and good. However, study the genetics and it transpires that polar bears are closer to some brown bears, than some brown hears are to each other. Go by the genes and it seems that the polar bear would not count as a species in its own right (and thus might not enjoy the protection afforded to species) but should be labelled a subspecies of the brown bear.