Someone on another thread shared a link with me about taxonomy. I’m not particularly interested in taxonomy but it was a kind gesture so I read it. The part that interested me was about Pantherine. Basically, the bit about morphologically and behaviorally distinct species breeding only in captivity but producing viable offspring.
The question I have is… when this happens in the wild, and the offspring can themselves reproduce, is there ever pressure to create a new genus above the new species that share traits from the original two species (especially if/when, unlike this scenario the original two species are from different genuses)? Basically, is taxonomy limited to a hierarchical rather than relational architecture? Software supports both hierarchical and relational architectures elegantly, but the traditional taxonomic structure is ancient.
Unsurprisingly, hierarchical db structure came before relational. Hierarchical in the 60s, and relational in the 70s. In practice, many large companies in the early 90s still had mostly hierarchical db structures. It wouldn’t be shocking to me if taxonomists are still limited to hierarchical (because of how long it’s taken for programmers to focus on them). Part of the problem would be that switching might put enormous pressure on existing code (and taxonomic paradigm). But would taxonomists see the switch as worthwhile? Or has it already happened?
Relational architecture above and below species would mean that a “saugeye” (a fish that’s a sauger / walleye hybrid) might be a new micro-species that points to both parent species (not just in terms of nomenclature but also in terms of data presentation). It gets more complicated if the Saugeye is eventually able to reproduce. It’s my understanding that it can’t right now. But if it started to? I imagine it would be looked upon as a new species within the Sander genus. In this case, it’s easy because both walleye and sauger are in that same genus. But what if they weren’t? Would there be pressure to create a new genus to force the new cross out of the two parent genuses? And would this only be because of the underlying taxonomic and technological data structures (or because taxonomists would do it this way anyway)?
It’s quite possible that I am, as I sit here typing, infuriating my tribe. The programmers. This is because they’ve done nothing wrong. The easiest way to apply binary programming logic to an existing paradigm is to take a snapshot of that paradigm and code to that snapshot. Software development is every bit as complicated as taxonomy. To try to debate the underlying taxonomic architecture while also trying to mimic it with binary logic would be impossible. As systems mature, there comes a time to have these conversations… which is why I bring it up.
The reason for relational architecture above and below species is its special distinction to non-scientists. New offspring from two different species wouldn’t have special significance. And a species derived from two different genuses wouldn’t have special significance. The special significance would still mostly be about the ability to reproduce with something.
It’s impossible to know if the underlying data for these displays has the relationships available and the UI just doesn’t use them, or if the relationships aren’t stored in the underlying technological and taxonomic data structures. Are the relationships only revealed via nomenclature (after “x” on the latin name for saugeye)? The Saugeye shows up as a full blown species even though it’s a cross that can’t reproduce. Now, maybe it’s a full blown species because you can kinda tell them apart (even a recreational fisherman can sorta tell them apart). Still, if it can’t reproduce, should it really be directly under Genus…
If it’s missing from the architecture, I’d suggest allowing for every species to be displayed like an X (even if there is no use case for it yet). In other words, pretend the walleye and sauger that created the saugeye each came from a different genus. And the saugeye, upon developing the ability to reproduce, could reference both genuses when elevated to species.
I believe this might provide the most flexibility to scientists (data and taxonomic) and provide the most clarity to iNat users.
But the wise scientist (data and taxanomic) must also ask…
What does all of this work to model data which has been explored, discovered, and described. What does all that work do to enable positive outcomes? If the only outcome is 1,000 exotics breeders becoming interested in Pantherines to create Ligers, then just stick with the ancient architecture that’s less revealing about where crosses are possible.
On the other hand, if it lessens architecturally driven species splitting, it might be worth doing. Two species from different genuses having offspring that would be a sub-species (like the Saugeye) but instead is made a species due to architectural constraints coupled with a newly found ability to reproduce. I have no idea how taxonomists would see a situation like this (and have no idea if it ever even happens). But if it did, I could see how a hierarchical architecture might influence the creation of a new species below a new genus.