Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I’m now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It’s amazing I haven’t been arrested.
There’s multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it’s trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn’t really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:
But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:
You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there’ll always be some weird edges that don’t really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.
downvoting because it’s not really true what you said. sure there’s always exceptions in biology that don’t fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it’s a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn’t make the rule meaningless though.
Lol, have you not seen the OP or have ever looked at plant taxonomy before? There are many different groups where it is dubious if we can apply some sort of species concept.
And you talk about the species concept as if there was only just one?
Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I’m now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It’s amazing I haven’t been arrested.
Does that mean 3. Desire to do so?
There’s multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it’s trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn’t really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:
But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:
You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there’ll always be some weird edges that don’t really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.
As a visual learner this really helped me to understand. +1 good explaining. I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
downvoting because it’s not really true what you said. sure there’s always exceptions in biology that don’t fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it’s a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn’t make the rule meaningless though.
Lol, have you not seen the OP or have ever looked at plant taxonomy before? There are many different groups where it is dubious if we can apply some sort of species concept.
And you talk about the species concept as if there was only just one?