Hello Birdfolk,

Some of you may have already seen Burt's interesting posting on Birdchat.

Dan Victor, Seattle, <mailto:dcv at scn.org>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:55:39 -0800
From: Burton Guttman <guttmanb at ELWHA.EVERGREEN.EDU>
To: BIRDCHAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

The idea of a species is a human concept that has grown out of the human
need to classify, arrange, and count things. The word "species" is
related to "spices," believe it or not, because in the classical
marketplace, the spice merchants displayed their wares in boxes divided
into little cubbyholes, with each kind of spice in one compartment. To
say that some other object, such as an animal, belongs to this species or
that one is to say that you can put it into a particular neat little
cubbyhole in your overall scheme for understanding the universe. The
major reason this issue keeps popping up on Birdchat is our obsession with
listing and the satisfaction of having 500 species on your North American
list rather than only 490.

But as birds or other organisms evolve, they don't necessarily form neat
little categories that fit our preconception of how objects ought to be
arranged. Evolution is messy. As populations spread out geographically
and divide, they subtly thumb their noses at human conventions by creating
complicated morphological and reproductive situations, which we may label
semispecies and superspecies when deep in our Aristotelian hearts we wish
the little creatures would just be species, cleanly and definitively.
Reproduction may be sloppy, complicated and unpredictable. The Mallard
you place easily in the category Anas platyrhynchos may take a shine to
some Gadwall or Widgeon and violate all the rules by creating a bunch of
funny-looking hybrids. And there you sit with your binoculars, powerless to
keep the world neat and orderly!

Systematics becomes more sensible and more realistic year by year as
biologists recognize these complications and stop trying to force-fit
them into simple categories. But I've maintained before, on Birdchat,
that birders should not be troubled by the biological issues. I once
suggested that the ABA should create a list of identifiable forms--call
them "species" if you wish--that birders can expect to encounter and
identify in the field in North America, regardless of what studies by
systematic biologists reveal about their relationships. Then birders who
want to play the listing game will have a simple set of rules and a
simple ultimate goal: To see and identify all 800 (or whatever the
number turns out to be) forms that are on the list. I wish someone would
think about that idea and take it seriously.

Burt Guttman guttmanb at elwha.evergreen.edu
The Evergreen State College Voice: 360-866-6000, x. 6755
Olympia, WA 98505 FAX: 360-866-6794

Reunite Gondwana!