[Sca-cooks] OT OOP Taxonomy was ( Moose again)

[Decker, Terry D.]

In this case, I'm working from a collection of notes, some of which date
back 35 years to when I was first introduced to the fun world of taxonomic
debate.  Since I'm not a zoologist or botanist, etc, etc, I tend to be very
casual about following the latest vogues in naming, as they are often based
on academic politics and who is the power in the taxonomic world rather than
any appreciable difference in the subject critters.  I do believe I can
explain why our sources are opposed and why it may not matter.

IIRC, there were three identified species of Alces, when I originally
started playing in taxonomy.  More recently these three species have been
considered 7 subspecies.  The real question and debate is, "are there or are
there not enough biological differences to justify speciation within a
genus."

Taxonomists tend to fall into two broad categories, "splitters" and
"lumpers."  "Splitters" like greater speciation; "lumpers" like less.  Back
when I started with this, the "splitters" held sway.  Looking at some of the
current literature, the "lumpers" are back in vogue.  This may have
something to do with rising authority of molecular biology, but I haven't
kept up with the literature, so I can not say with certainty.

In the biological sciences, there is a great deal of prestige associated
with identifying a new critters.  Under the "splitters," a few biological
differences could be used to produce a new species.  Viola, instant
prestige.  Which is why the splitters were so popular.  "Lumpers" don't like
a lot of species cluttering up their taxonomic charts, so the new species
disappear into the primary species and a horde of subspecies appear.  Again,
instant prestige.

Are the European and North American Alces populations different species?
Unless someone has done a seminal study on the genetic variations in Alces,
I doubt there is a definitive answer.  Which means the taxonomy we follow
tends to be the one we were taught or the one we consider most correct.

The C. canadiensis/C. elaphus debate is perennial.  The animals are closely
related, but the variations between the North American and European
populations suggest that speciation has occurred.  On average, the wapiti is
2 to 3 times larger than the red deer and requires a higher percentage of
its adult mass before sexual maturation.  By "lumping" and organizing wapiti
subspecies by size, a case can be made that the red deer is the smallest of
the species, and because of the taxonomic conventions, C. elaphus has
precedence over C. canadiensis.

As an endnote, I found a reference to the dispute from the American Museum
of Natural History, which recognizes that the dispute exists and ignores it,
by labelling the exhibit, American elk (wapiti).

Bear





> Clearly we are reading different sources. Just out of
> curiosity, where are
> you finding your info?
>
> Margaret
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Decker, Terry D. wrote:
>
> > As a small correction, Alces alces and A. americana are
> considered different
> > species rather than different subspecies, although the
> point is debatable.
> > A. alces is called an elk in Europe.  A. americana is
> called a moose (from
> > the Abenaki word "mos").
> >
> > Cervus canadiensis (wapiti, from the Shawnee "waapiti,"
> called an elk in
> > North America) is a different species from Cervus elaphus
> (European red
> > deer).
> >
> > Caribou and reindeer both appear to be Rangifer tarandus.
> >
> > And if you do serve elk (be it European or North American)
> at a feast, let
> > me know.  I want to be there.
> >
> > Bear