Surprise Birth

[drache]

as far as I can tell "doing it on purpose" has not become a trend yet
and so far I've not encountered much insistence on the practice on this forum
it seems to me that the majority of our members prefer not to muddy the gene pool, and are sufficiently outspoken about their distaste that it ought to give a clear message to newcomers
as to what you call the offspring of two subspecies that don't qualify as intergrades, that's simple. you call them hybrids. crazy, yup, but pretty accurate

[ConcinusMan]

That may be the case if humans had sub-species.

The example you gave would be like us debating if an anery concinnus that breeds with a "normal" concinnus would be a hybrid or an integrade.

-Thomas

Scientist may not have named human subspecies for whatever reason, but the difference between a Chinese person and an African person qualifies. When a species is made up of morphologically distinct, geographically separate groups which are yet not distinct enough to constitute separate species, the term subspecies is employed, correct?

You are right then, the offspring of two subspecies does not qualify as an intergrade. By definition it is a hybrid. I just think there should be a distinction. If I'm calling the offspring of two different species a hybrid, I think I need a different word for snakes that are the offspring of two different subspecies. One scenario is different species, the other are the same species. Big difference.

[Tyrel26]

well there is a word for you to use conman, a few in fact. the following are sometimes used when dealing with hybrids. (yes it is still classed as a hybrid lol)

I believe the first is Intra-specific Hybrid, which is the result of to animals of different subspecies (but same species) breeding.

when it comes to 2 animals of different species (but the same genus) it is known as an Inter-Specific Hybrid.

if it is breeding of 2 animals of different genera the result is Inter-generic Hybrid.

there are a couple other different types of hybrids as well but for our purposes this should do. Im no expert on this but this should at least make this discussion as clear as mud lol

this may not help but I seen it as post worthy lol

[Tyrel26]

Also, when it comes to not naming any group of humans as a subspecies I think the reason may be this.

Subspecies by definition is a subordinate to the species. Now list any race of humans as a subordinate to another and the result would not be pretty. I don't know if this is the reason but it is a good one lol

[ConcinusMan]

I see nothing in any version of the definition of "subspecies" to indicate that it means a subspecies is subordinate to the species as a whole. It is a subunit. Big difference.

[Stefan-A]

I have no idea what you two are referring to by the terms "subordinate" or "subunit". But if we have a look at the situation as it is at this moment, "species" is just a collective name for groups of organisms that share a relatively recent common ancestor.

[ConcinusMan]

But this is coming from a person who questions the validity of species, let alone subspecies. What you're suggesting would make all (30 something) thamnophis the same species. Radix, ordinoides, and sirtalis would be subspecies. That leaves no catagory left to distinguish between infernalis and concinnus, or any other sirtalis.

Now, only one thing left to consider. How the heck are we going to know what snake we are talking about when one person has a T.s. infernalis, the other a T.s. pickeringii? Obviously, they aren't exactly the same morphologically or geographically, so what to do about that?

Personally, I don't think that the TRUE relationships between the different thamnophis snakes will ever be known fully until all have been DNA sampled and the data analyzed. If that was done, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that some sirtalis subspecies are more closely related to non-sirtalis Thamnophis snakes than they are to each other. Afterall, even though it doesn't appear so, chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to orangutans or monkeys. Until the DNA results are in (might never happen) we have Thamnophis (genus) sirtalis (species) and so, we must further categorize by use of subspecies.

Personally, I tend to think that T.s. infernalis and T.s concinnus are the same species. No more different from each other than a black person is from an blond-haired, blue eyed, fair skinned Irishman. Like humans, the differences between the two happen in gradients over distance. I guess that's what makes it so difficult for me to call offspring of the two snakes a hybrid.

[Tyrel26]

Don't kill the messenger!! lol That is simply just one definition. I am not trying to argue, I was just making convo. I did make a bit of a mistake in that definition, it is really a subordinate rank to species; either way I feel people would take this negatively. I do not know the true reason humans aren't classes as subspecies, I was just pondering lol

I am no expert on the matter, I was merely giving a few types of Hybrid. If I am wrong do what my prof would say "40 lashes with the cat of nine tails!!"

Actually if I am wrong please correct me, that is the reason I joined this forum...to learn.

[Stefan-A]

But this is coming from a person who questions the validity of species, let alone subspecies. What you're suggesting would make all (30 something) thamnophis the same species. Radix, ordinoides, and sirtalis would be subspecies. That leaves no catagory left to distinguish between infernalis and concinnus, or any other sirtalis.

Nope, different labels apply. They are all the same genus, Thamnophis. All species belonging to that genus share a slightly less recent common ancestor and that genus shares a slightly more distant ancestor with the rest of Colubridae. And so on and so on. Let's not forget that the linnean system was thought up long before Darwin came along and now people are bending over backwards to apply the system to a situation that's constantly changing, instead of the static one Linnaeus expected. For taking snapshots of the current situation, it's good enough, but a system that describes the actual relationships between units, should be able to go back 4 billion years without problems and work from here "to the end of time", taking into consideration the fact that lines are diverging and will eventually give rise to the equivalent of new subspecies and eventually full species, genera, families, orders etc. Provided they don't become extinct as most, if not all of them actually will.

There are several species concepts. I don't know if this will make it better or worse, but here's a link:
Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia