Lumpers vs Splitters

[jarich]

After reading a few threads about boas I thought I would see what everyone's opinions are regarding speciation. This is an age old debate among scientists and always an interesting discussion I think. I came to it from my work in Paleoanthropology regarding the evolution of humans, but it works for all species. Im going to go really basic here, but essentially Lumpers say that it takes large scale variation to warrant a new species (they lump groups of species more closely together), whereas Splitters say that very little variation is required to call an animal a new species, sub species, etc (they take groups and split them up into many more species, sub species, etc). To take an example from the forum here, the present discussion on boas regarding sub species is a good one. There are some who view each different local variation as a sub species, while others call them all the same species with no sub species at all. So where do you all sit?

I myself am a lumper. I think that local variation does not warrant a sub species, and that there is rarely actually such a thing as a sub species. Variation within a species can be great, just look at humans and dogs. A Great Dane is the same species as a chihuahua, and Swede is the same species as an Indian.

Let the debate begin!

[snake man12]

If location doesn't warrant a subspecies then why is a boa from Guyana vs a boa from Colombia called BCI and BCC:D So I'm a splitter

[KORBIN5895]

I am a lumper. Zach you are wrong ( bloody splitters). I believe that location doesn't change its genetic make up. I believe a Suriname looks the way it does because of breeding the same genetics with the same genetics. If on that you has snakes that had may different patterns and they kept breeding over generations you would eventually get a pretty set pattern. Are albinos considered a different species? What if you bred albinos for generations? Would they be considered a different species?

Oh jk Zach :)

[Shmoges]

Localities of rosy boas are a big deal, while they don't vary in body shape they are very different in coloration attitude and in some cases size. On the flip side however it can make things very confusing when one locality can have 2-5 different names or like with corn snakes and the ridiculous morph names ppl are coming up with.

[KORBIN5895]

So you are a??????

[alessia55]

I would say the very thing jarich said.

I myself am a lumper. I think that local variation does not warrant a sub species, and that there is rarely actually such a thing as a sub species. Variation within a species can be great, just look at humans and dogs. A Great Dane is the same species as a chihuahua, and Swede is the same species as an Indian.

I'm a lumper too ;)

[vendettaseve]

Can I be both? There are many cases where one would be warranted over the other.

[snake man12]

If albino's started showing different behavior and different sizes and evolving colors then they would be a sub species. Suri's also get bigger and are not as nice as Colombian BCI. Also the genetic make up has to change if there are different colors there is a gene for every thing..

[Shmoges]

I guess I don't know what I am lol I can see valid points for each view. For the sake of simplicity, lumper for sure. However I think there are variants of snakes that deserve separate classifications, and for that I would choose splitter.

[SnakeyJay]

Splitter for sure... its just more accurate in the long run. Just look at how bloodlines are diffused and split up already. Its hard to guarentee something is 100 % genetically what you think it is... suriname bcc would be bred to colombian bci etc.. localities of alot of species that we all love would be integrated with no second thought and the details not told when babies sold... simply boa, retic, burm. Just my opinion as this is the first time ive heard the term "lumpers and splitters"

[shaunyboy]

I guess I don't know what I am lol I can see valid points for each view. For the sake of simplicity, lumper for sure. However I think there are variants of snakes that deserve separate classifications, and for that I would choose splitter.


^^^^^
the above pretty much said what i was thinking

cheers shaun

[ineedsoap16]

I'd be another a spitter but you really have to take the genetic makeup into consideration. For a long time it was believed that carpets were carpets. With further genetic study its shown that bredl and I believe imbricata are different from the rest of the carpets, but coastal and jungle are pretty much identical on the genetic level. Much more research has to be done and if you'll notice, classifications are constantly changing.