Fifty years ago an entomologist in Ballaland identified a new species of beetle the scalawag This beetle is nearly identical to the Andover mop beetle but is slightly larger A recent comparison of a colony of Ballaland beetles and Andover mop beetles demo

With new species being discovered every other day, nature is a wonder and a treasure trove of knowledge. Certainly, there might be some “discoveries” that aren’t new at all and are in fact an extention of a previous discovery. However, this might not be the case in this situation. The author argues that because the Ballaland and Andover Mop beetles were physically identical in almost every way, the two species were actually the same. There are multiple assumptions and flaws in the author’s logic, which needs to be answered in order to evalute the validity of the statement.

The first question that needs to be answered is if physical similarity is the most important factor in determining a species? Based on the author’s research, while the Ballaland beetle is slightly larger than the Andover Mop beetle, the range of sizes between them were identical and thus considers them to be of the same species. However, a similarity in the range of sizes doesn’t mean that there are no physical differences between the two beetles. For example, the Ballaland beetle could range anywhere from within 8 to 10 inches, while the Andover Mop beetle could range from 3 to 5 inches. While their ranges are similar, the difference in sizes are apparent and non-negligible. Thus, it is difficult to discount this difference in sizes between the two species due to a similarity in range of sizes within each species. Additionally, is physical similarity the most important factor in determining a species? For the novice, Red Pandas and Racoons might look similar — but we would never consider them to be the same species. As such, more understanding of taxanomy classifications need to be provided by the author before we can evaluate her claim. If physical similarities is in fact the most important component of species classification, this would give her claim more validity.

Additionally, the author seems to easily dismiss behavior and diet of the two beetle species. A question that needs to be answered is if behavior and diet are negligible when considering species classifications. If the Ballaland beetle is carnivorous and preys on other insects, while the Andover Mop beetle is herbivorous and only consumes vegetation, it would be hard to argue that they are, in fact, the same species. Furthermore, if one beetle is active in the daytime while the other is nocturnal, additional information and research needs to be provided to evaluate how similar and dissimilar the two species are. The author needs to provide more details as to the differences in behavior and diet of both beetles in order for us to consider whether these differences are small enough for us to conclude that they are in fact the same species.

Last but not least, the author naturally assumes that the difference in behavior and diet are due to habitat and environment, and not due the characteristics of the species itself. What if these differences were innate to the species, and not due to their location? For example, the Ballaland beetle’s diet might be based on Plant A that is local to Ballaland, while the Andover Mop beetle’s diet might be based on Plant B which is local to its habitat. If we were to swap the plants around, would Ballaland beetles be able to survive on a diet based on Plant B, or would it die out as this is not part of its diet. If Ballaland beetles could survive on Andover Mop beetles’ diets, this would strengthen the author’s claim. Similarly, more research needs to be done on their behavior to determine whether these characteristics are innate or due to external factors such as habitat, climate and location. Thus, the biologists were correct in suggesting more research on behavior and diet of the two species before we can make a determination on whether these two species are the same.

In conclusion, there are many assumptions in the author’s argument. The author needs to answer whether physical appearances are the most vital indicator of species classifications, whether the importance of behavior and diet is negligible in classifying species, as well as whether the differences in behavior and diet were innate characteristics of the species or due to external factors. More information needs to be provided and more research must be conducted before we can fully access the validity of the author’s argument that the Ballaland species and Andover species are in fact the same species.