Reclassification of our species?

ahhhh yes, taxonomy, I love it (I have a Masters Degree in it, nice!) 

After a year of studying it I came to the conclusion that it doesnt work- essentially trying fit the genetic and physical dynamics of populations into a box boxes saying "yes" or "no" doesn't work. There are over 200 species definitions and not a single one of them can account for every organism and its way of life on this planet and so it suggests that we, as humans, have the concepts totally wrong and misunderstood. 

But then again we have to do something to list things, and so human misinterpretations are all we have!

The classic Linnean system based upon morphology seemed to be good for a while when all we did was look at the big picture. Then we started looking a bit closer and realised that not all individuals looked the same across the range, and so subspecies started being named. And so it went on.

Now we have molecular taxonomy, and this suggests an even more different story, often conflicting with what the morphology suggests, and so it seems, as with a lot of aspects of life, the more we look the more complicated it gets and the more we simply dont get it!

In taxonomy, whether it be morphological or molecular, you are either a "lumper" or "splitter". Lumpers assume a single species that is made up of lots of morphs/ subspecies across the range. Splitters are the opposite and like to divvy things up based upon the tiniest of differences. For example, a lumper would say that Lacerta viridis is one big continuous species found from France to Russia with several subspecies within this range. Whereas a splitter would split it up into a multitude of different species across its range- based upon variation in morphology or molecular variation that he or she sees.

There are no specific laws or guidelines for this (the International laws on Taxonomic Nomenclature do exist but are old and very much a grey area- open to interpretation, bit like the bible)- any author can do his research and publish it, as long as they justify themselves and their peers do not dismiss it or rubbish it then it goes to print, and becomes the new take on things. 

And so Lacerta vivipara has become Zootoca vivipara- i assume someone has done some work on it and found it is different to the rest of the Lacerta to justify it has its own genus. Potentially all "species" can be broken down in this way and allocated their own genus, it just needs to someone to really look at them hard and have the funds to get their words into print if they find anything different, which the chances are they will. 

Either way, who is right and who is wrong eh. It just goes to show that we humans do not have a clue when it comes to population dynamics and the systems and processes that are at work, the more we look the more complicated it becomes and the harder it becomes to apply general rules that encompass all species. Tricky isnt it!

Rob