Post by wolf on May 22, 2015 17:58:40 GMT
Hi all,
I think brunni is quite right in asking for the description of the doubtful “rhodei” subspecies, form or “var.”.
By the way, as far as I know there is no “var.” in Zoology any more since 1960, according to the ICZN (= International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature).
A revision of the Achatinidae should urgently be done because the situation is becoming more or less chaotic, meanwhile. A long time has passed since Bequaert (1950), and A.R. Mead could only shed some light on a few questions. After further investigations, I suppose that some so called “subspecies” will change into “forms” (= formae = ff.) which differ in only one or a few genes (alleles).
Sorry for a final, personal remark: sometimes it's difficult to determine the exact subspecies or form of a specimen belonging to the Archachatina marginata complex and some people are disappointed about the difficulties in breeding “pure lines”, but changing of the phenotype from parents to offspring is well known from genetics and makes much sense in nature/evolution. Might be it’s better to accept that each species and even each subspecies has a more or less broad gene pool (thank god........) than to distinguish numerous “forms” (= formae = ff.) with different names? Concerning Cepaea hortensis or Cepaea nemoralis for example, nowadays no one uses dozens of names any more, but we focus instead on the genetic mechanisms of these polymorphisms. There are many possible reasons for differences between parents and offspring, including heterogeny, epigenetic mechanisms and so on…….. .
Please apologize me, kind regards: wolf
I think brunni is quite right in asking for the description of the doubtful “rhodei” subspecies, form or “var.”.
By the way, as far as I know there is no “var.” in Zoology any more since 1960, according to the ICZN (= International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature).
A revision of the Achatinidae should urgently be done because the situation is becoming more or less chaotic, meanwhile. A long time has passed since Bequaert (1950), and A.R. Mead could only shed some light on a few questions. After further investigations, I suppose that some so called “subspecies” will change into “forms” (= formae = ff.) which differ in only one or a few genes (alleles).
Sorry for a final, personal remark: sometimes it's difficult to determine the exact subspecies or form of a specimen belonging to the Archachatina marginata complex and some people are disappointed about the difficulties in breeding “pure lines”, but changing of the phenotype from parents to offspring is well known from genetics and makes much sense in nature/evolution. Might be it’s better to accept that each species and even each subspecies has a more or less broad gene pool (thank god........) than to distinguish numerous “forms” (= formae = ff.) with different names? Concerning Cepaea hortensis or Cepaea nemoralis for example, nowadays no one uses dozens of names any more, but we focus instead on the genetic mechanisms of these polymorphisms. There are many possible reasons for differences between parents and offspring, including heterogeny, epigenetic mechanisms and so on…….. .
Please apologize me, kind regards: wolf
[/URL