[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Linnean Classification and Creationism



>In a message dated 95-12-14 15:29:00 EST, cpretzma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Chip Pretzman) writes:
>
>>Dino George replies:
>>>Even these are arbitrary: When are two species close enough to be
>>congeneric?<<<
>>
>>The defintion of congeneric refers to two or more species that share the
>>same genus.  What do you mean by this retort?  Congeric refers to congeners,
>>as in 'co-genera', and there are lots of species close enough to be
>>congeneric, nearly all in essence.
>>
>>
>(Dino George Replies:
Why did we consider small cats all to be in the genus _Felis_ at once time,
>but now there are several genera to hold those species? What changed? Why is
_Brontosaurus excelsus_ considered to be in _Apatosaurus_ instead of in its
own genus? If the genus _Homo_ descended from the genus _Australopithecus_,
why isn't _Australopithecus_ a junior synonym of _Homo_? Why are _Barosaurus_
and _Diplodocus_ in separate genera? Why aren't _Stegosaurus ungulatus_ and
_Stegosaurus stenops_ in separate genera, or _Brachiosaurus altithorax_ and
_Briachiosaurus brancai_?

How similar is "similar enough to be congeneric"?

YOU TELL ME!  HITHERTO I HAVE WORKED STRICTLY WITH ASEXUALLY REPRODUCTIVE
ORGANISMS AND THESE QUESTIONS DON'T ARISE MUCH, HARDLY AT ALL. IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT THIS CONFUSION EXISTS WITH MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS. YOU ARE
THE ONES POSING THE PROBLEMS YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TAKE A
WIDER LOOK AT THINGS, AND EVEN A NARROWER LOOK WHEN IT COMES TO DEFINING
SPECIES.  A SPECIES IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT, AND UNTIL IT BECOMES OTHERWISE,
PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS ARGUE OVER PLACEMENT OF ORGANISMS, CLADISTICS, ETC.  NOW,
AT THE GENE LEVEL, THERE IS LITTLE OR NO SUBJECTIVITY.

-CP