[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Species concepts
> >From: Nick Pharris <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: email@example.com
> >CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: Of Tarbosaurs and tabbies
> >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:41:31 -0500
> >Wait, so you're advocating a system wherein any two individuals
> who can
> >mate to
> >produce viable (even if sterile) offspring would be lumped into
> the same
Nick, you must have missed my subsequent post. I contend that lions and tigers
(and here I'll include the other big cats) are still in the process of
diverging from their common ancestor. I therefore consider them all to be not
the same species, nor yet *entirely* distinct species. They're transitional.
> >I think you'd find very few specialists would agree with you
> there. This
> >mean lumping entire families (Elephantidae, Equidae, Delphinidae,
> perhaps>Felidae) into single species--
Again, 'species' is not the right word here. And perhaps some of these family
s should be demoted to the genus level.
Brad McFeeters then writes:
> Has anyone introduced a system similar to the following?
> Fertile offspring = same species
> Infertile offspring = different species of same genus
> No offspring = different genera
I would put it thus:
Fertile offspring = same species, or newly-diverging sub-species
Infertile offspring = sub-species (transitional) of recently-same species
No offspring = distinct species
Don't forget, there's a blur between the first two, what with variably fertile
and infertile offspring resulting between lion/tiger trysts.
I am SUCH a convert to cladistics...