Quote:
Originally Posted by
koicluboftheair 
As is so often commonly said in the koi hobbyist community these fish are genetically disposed to variations in color and pattern and many desirable varieties have been lost and the history of them muddled via selective breeding. Why not pursue the application of the subspecies nomenclature to Cyprinus carpio for ornamental koi? Other animal and plant species are differentiated into subspecies by factors that may or may not include geographic distribution, behavioral characteristics, coloration, genetic markers and morphology. Why not koi? As specially bred varieties cannot be studied in the wild geographic distribution would not be a determinant, but how about behavioral characteristics as with the calmer manner of the chagoi due to its lineage? Color variety and patterning are obviously distinguishable variations that are hybridized with more veracity in koi it seems than Gregor Mendel accomplished with peas. Genetic and morphological distinctions seem likely to exist beyond variations of color including sizes and shapes of structural characteristics including finnage (long fins and butterfly), nasal tufts, and barbles.
By definition “microevolution” occurs, “as evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/microevolution
The Biological Species Concept (BSC) used in animal taxonomy, which was developed in 1940 (nearly 200 years after the father of taxonomy Carl Linnaeus began cataloging diversity via specific nomenclature) has brought greater order some say to what has always been considered an intuitive rather than exact science. Wilson and Brown (1953) quoted Moore (1949) who said, "there is no generally accepted and easily applied criterion for recognizing subspecies." However, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature continues to list subspecies. “The Code is meant to guide only the nomenclature of animals, while leaving the zoologists some degree of freedom in classifying new species and higher-level taxa. In other words, whether a species itself is or is not a real entity is a subjective decision, but what name should be applied to it is not; the Code applies only to the latter, not to the former.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...l_Nomenclature
As with orchid hybridizing the naming of subspecies as much of the rationale has always been based on the willingness of those doing the hybridizing in farming situations. Resisting the designation of subspecies would seem rooted in breeders not wanting such designations and possible indifference from hobbyists. Yet, if certain varieties have traits worth maintaining then a subspecies designation would provide the potential for possibly preserving at least the record of those characteristics for more than has been accomplished in decades and varieties past.