This subject is contentious in birds too. Some birds have distinctive and very easily IDable subspecies, but some fall into the “well, it was found here, so I assume it’s this” subspecies groupings.
The reason it is contentious is because many subspecies in mammals and birds can’t be morphologically distinguished, and some of those subspecies boundaries are extremely numerous and cryptic.
Of course, if there is reason to ID as a subspecies, I don’t see why not, but no one should be shamed for just keeping species and ignoring subspecies concepts. Then again, it’s not right to check “disagree” on an ID just because you don’t personally believe in subspecies. That’s not your own call to make.
By that definition, one could also object to the subspecies level ID if the phenotype is dissimilar to the standard for that subspecies (even if the observation was made in a location otherwise consistent with the subspecies ID).
So given all I’m seeing in further browsing around on topics on the forum, and input from you fine folks, I’m feeling like unless it’s a very obvious and important subspecies, I’m probably just going to revert to using base species to avoid the battle. I can still find subspecies interesting without having to use the ID on my observations.
While I think it’s real neat that the coyotes in Utah are ‘mountain coyotes’ and are smaller and paler than their eastern relatives, @cthawley is probably right that it doesn’t really add pertinent information to the observation. Perhaps it is simply my desire to educate, because not everyone knows that there are 19 subspecies of coyote, and I think they should.
However, I’m not really sure how to address the existing observations that have been disagreed with and knocked back down to the species level. It feels like giving in to say “Fine, you’re right, it’s not a mountain coyote, it’s just a coyote” when it is clearly (to me, I guess) a mountain coyote.
Perhaps I’m just stubborn.
Having just disagreed with someone on an ID of a beaver, I didn’t see any options for this. Is it a mobile app only thing? I’ve pretty much only used the website thus far.
Edit: Nevermind, I guess it’s automatic if you make a drastically different suggestion.
I think if you feel that an ID on the subspecies level is valuable then keep on doing it. Don’t let other people get you down. Anytime someone disagrees without comment write a reply to them asking if they can explain why they disagree.
My thought was that since different subspecies don’t occur in sympatry–by definition–one wouldn’t need to see identifying characters if the location was known. Different species, on the other hand, can occur in sympatry, so identifying characters are required in those situations. If subspecies do overlap broadly (occur in sympatry) and maintain their phenotypic distinction, then they apparently need to be elevated to species. But I suppose an individual of one subspecies may occasionally wander into the range of another subspecies. So, point taken, both criteria would need to be taken into consideration.
I think a “disagree” on a subspecies ID is valid if the subspecies is traditionally identifiable by morphologic characteristics that are not present in the observation.
My personal thought is that most subspecies are not legitimate taxa and that some were even described knowingly on shaky grounds during the “period of discovery” of the previous centuries just to get their name published in papers. But many people like subspecies, and some people even have an attachment to the ones described in their region, and I guess that’s justification enough for keeping them.
It’s a little tough because there isn’t really a hard definition of what a subspecies is, at least among animals. There are several infraspecific ranks in botany, including subspecies, variety, form, etc. It enables focus on various criteria for describing plants as taxa. But among animals, it’s only subspecies. What distinguishes subspecies from each other? Genetics? Morphology? Bone structure? Coat pattern? behavior? Niche? There really aren’t hard set rules and it varies depending on who you ask.
The traditional plains zebra subspecies (Equus quagga) are not genetically distinguishable from each other and interbreed, but they do have coat patterns that naturalists reliably use to distinguish members from one another, and the IUCN continues to recognize them for taxonomic purposes, so they are usually recognized.
The IUCN Cat Classification Cat Force sunk all jaguar subspecies (Panthera onca) into one because they identified the differences between them as clinal, not reflective of legitimately isolated populations.
The two subspecies of American bison (Bison bison) are not genetically very distinguishable, but they support different habitat niches and are consequently considered ecotypes, so they too are traditionally recognized.
The subspecies I usually bother to ID are those for which there is fairly good evidence that they could be distinct species. Since taxonomic revisions sometimes lag, or go back and forth, it can be helpful to use the trinomial for these organisms. Other examples are subspecies that are of different conservation status than other geographic races in that species and which might be legally protected.
I think that’s fair. Honestly, probably the correct use of the “disagree” feature. Having said that, this brings into account “ID by assumption” in general, which is something people deal with for species level IDs as well, not just subspecies.
Personally, I don’t really care about subspecies level.
Where they are easily identifiable, e.g. bontebok vs blesbok or northern/southern lion, I’ll ID them as such. Where only one subspecies is reliably found in a certain location, I’ll ID to subspecies level based on location as well.
Otherwise, my tendency is just to ID to species level, especially where the subspecies has not been identified by others yet.
I actually don’t agree with the whole notion of subspecies, but that’s just me! If someone posts a moth with it, I would probably leave a note asking for reasoning. However, many folks get quite worked up about it. I won’t argue about it, I just find it to be unnecessary most of the time.
BTW, it is possible to reply to two people - just use @------ and @------- and both names will show up.
Oh, and welcome to the Forum! Always lots to discuss here.
It’s not simply a migration thing. 2 subspecies of Limenitis arthemis are found where I live (ie as permanent residents) as an example that came immediately to mind. One is more common, but both are present. I would assume short of island endemics etc, there will always be range border places where there is overlap in distribution.
