I’ve spent the last couple days reading the forum topics on subspecies with hopes of being able To actually elaborate on the opinions of users regarding subtaxon, particularly field-identifiable subspecific forms. Of course, scientists across different taxa have different views; herpetologists, botanists, and lepidopterists will all have separate opinions based on where they dedicate their expertise. So before a can of worms is opened that makes the discussion unintelligible, I want to make it clear this view is from the perspective of an ornithologist, birder, etc. while attempting to be as inclusive as possible to the others. So, if one section doesn’t really apply to your form of work, which I acknowledge could happen, let me know what you do, do. I’ll try and compile it together so we can have a broader knowledge acceptance.
I’m working on creating a comprehensive resource for identifying field-identifiable bird subspecies. I aim to make it user-friendly and inclusive in its descriptions, photos, and range data. This has never been done before, so I’m seeking opinions here to help me tread these controversial waters carefully. Once finished, I’ll likely adapt the premise grasped from this post into an author’s note for the guide. My approach is to present various questions and answer them with my opinions, hoping that other users can contribute additional insights or point out any mistakes.
(1) What is a subspecies? (for the purposes of a user-friendly guide)
Under early classification systems like Linnaean taxonomy, any bird that looked slightly different was classified as a “variety” or “form”. This description process was vague at best. By the late 1800s, ornithologists and zoologists realized these weren’t random variations; they were generally predictable, distinct populations with specific geographic regions. Finally in the late 19th century Taxonomists have further divided species into subspecies (ssp.). Each ssp. bears a third scientific name, or trinomial. A subspecies is a distinct population within a single species that lives in a specific geographical region. When they show the prerequisite recognizable differences, the species is considered to be polytypic. Its members look or act a bit different from other groups of the same species, but they can still mate and reproduce well. To be clear, subspecies are separated from species because it is known that they can successfully interbreed. Therefore, it is assumed they could and likely would interbreed if given the chance, so the focus is more on physical variations.
(2) Why should I care about identifying to subspecies?
First of all, in the case of a species split, the observations being identified to subspecies will make the transition way smoother. As an example, for birds eBird will automatically update your lists for you.
“Not only can this information be helpful to researchers and conservationists, but if the group is later split, eBird will automatically update your lists for you. If you live in Texas, where Yellow-rumped Warblers could be either the Myrtle or Audubon’s subspecies, what will happen when they are split? Any sightings you enter as “Yellow-rumped Warbler (Myrtle)” will be moved to the new species “Myrtle Warbler” and likewise for Audubon’s, but any sightings you entered as just “Yellow-rumped Warbler” would become a slash: Myrtle/Audubon’s Warbler.”
By learning more about differences, we also help collect data that may enhance bird conservation which brings us into the second point.
For legal protection and funding. Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), subspecies can be listed as threatened or endangered independently of the main species. If a distinct subspecies disappears, a unique genetic lineage is lost forever, even if the broader species is thriving elsewhere. For example, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse receives federal protection because it is a distinct, localized subspecies. Wouldn’t you say that is worth saving?
Lastly, on a less ecological note subspecies allow for a area of interest in users who missed the gold-rush of species discovery last century. Science is always developing and the goal is always to be learning more, one can never know everything. Way back when, subspecies were thought to be left for in-hand review, and before that species were even considered nearly impossible for field ID - like everything, to an extent stuff develops as the people who are involved build on it and so develop. So much is unknown about subspecies of familiar birds, you really could have an important impact if you work to gather your own data on them. We have much to learn about the geographic distributions, migration patterns, and identification marks of many subspecies.
(3) Should the CV at least include the easily differentiated subspecies? If so, how?
I would appreciate improving support for subspecies within the CV. The Suggestions tab will currently only provide photos and distribution maps for species observed within a particular country/state/province/county and it would be great to be able to see these at a subspecies level. Some birds are clearly different, but have almost no observations at the subtaxon level, people can’t identify them and help with research if they don’t know they exist.
I’m sure this point is going to be the base of most traction on the post because any implementation might be difficult. I’m not saying it should be done because I want it, rather it is a point to consider because it would be helpful in the gaining on knowledge in relation to subtaxon.
The unfortunate view of many users is discouraging subspecies identifications in general on iNaturalist, so the CV doesn’t support them (*Not the only reason, I’m just saying…). This upsets me because it is suppressing a really important drive for information which is often missing in many subspecies such as subspecies ranges, morphology, and the topic of a potential split in the future, etc as mentioned above.
(4) Should you identify subspecies based on range only?
In line with the ABA and other ornithologists I’ve talked to, I’ve come to the position that subspecies should not be identified based on range. Automatically assuming the most likely form can dilute our perception of how prevalent that form is. That is, if we report all birds as the local form by default, we “prove” our idea that they are all the local form, regardless of whether we actually have evidence. If you can see the diagnostic feature, from my point of view there is little reason not to. But then what is the value in guessing subspecies if you can’t tell? For iNaturalist, it creates pointless, circular data and at worst it creates wrong data. If you identify an organism as Subspecies A simply because the map says Subspecies A lives there, and then your data point is used to update the map, you create a self-fulfilling/conflicting loop. (Note: I cannot confidently say this is the case for certain Lepidoptera subspecies as I know some well-versed users frequently identify based on range, but from my outside point of view it seems like they may be doing irrational work. I would love to here what they have to see though)
This is really worth its own topic and I could get into it way more, but I’ll leave it at one more point. The safest approach is always to identify only to the species level unless you can personally observe and confirm the diagnostic physical or behavioral traits. However, I cannot begrudge certain cases where users do identify based on range. This is primarily for island subspecies that do not have an ending gradient where intergrades abound, and expecting the unexpected is the only way to be precise. What I mean is, if a subspecies is completely isolated on a remote island or some distinct mountain range where no other subspecies exist, the location alone can provide reliable identification because, despite thousands of organisms researched, there has never been another subspecies in the isolated area and there is no reason to expect it is there. Still, I would only ever feel comfortable doing this if the given subspecies is field identifiable, but the photos are obscure (or it is a sound recording) and the range helps check the final box for ID. Because honestly, why would you be identifying subspecies on iNat and the related sites. Any scientists who would want to gather info on genetically different range seperated subspecies would do so by simply making a boundary and recording the species records within it for the area. Not by a fraction of incomplete work on iNat. Said work done online from a user behind a screen can only be sketchy work.
What do you think?
