[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Paradoxically temporal
I think you misunderstood the intent of my posting. I was saying that
*YOUR* definition (i.e.
">The time to declare that a new species has arrived is when a
>evolutionary novelty appears in a population, even if (as is generally
>case) there is no associated cladogenetic split. Since all we have is
>morphology, and the fossil record for paleo-species, this is the best
we can do,
>as far as drawing lines between species goes." ),
seems to fit best.
I was saying that there are problems with OTHER definitions, such as the
'Ability to Mate' rule, and I gave examples of exceptions (where
inter-species mating results in viable, fertile off-spring...).
Sorry about misleading you..
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Paradoxically temporal
>In a message dated 98-07-25 04:23:50 EDT, email@example.com writes:
><< This definition for speciation fits best, considering all the problems
> with other definitions: E.g. Ability to mate - Tigers and Lions are
> separate and distinct species, yet they can mate, and their offspring
> (Ligers, and Tigons) occasionally can sucessfully mate as well. (By
> sucessful I mean resultant offspring). >>
>I have yet to see two fossils mate successfully and/or produce a viable
>offspring. How, then, do we talk about species for fossils?