Gary, and  EricS, 

 

Well my vote is for Species, genus, etc., to be descriptive categories, levels 
of difference in the possession of traits.  As soon as we put our foot down, 
there, we discover that species differences are NOT as well correlated with 
levels of genetic differentiation or with gene flow as our theories would 
require.   “WHY are species?” then becomes a real and difficult question.  
Which, I think, relates to the question of why the genome is as modular as it 
is.  I whose interest is THAT?  

 

I agree that cladistics, with its weird terminology that only a ideologue could 
love, is impenetrable.  But I think we have to penetrate it.  It is, after all, 
a descriptive method of arraying organisms on the basis of their manifest 
traits. It does allow us, for instance, to make a distinction between 
convergent evolution (where creatures that are fundamentally different look 
superficially similar) and divergent evolution (where creatures that are 
fundamentally similar look superficially different) because it can breath life  
into the notions  of fundamentally and  superficially.   

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 11:53 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Discovery of 'cryptic species' shows Earth is even more 
biologically diverse | Wildlife | The Guardian

 

My late colleague Harold Morowitz once made a comment in an afternoon working 
conversation, which I found funny and fun.  He said something like “I remember 
only 45 years ago when the lagomorphs split off from the rodents”.

 

Kind of like Paul Erdos, the 4 billion year old man.

 

Eric

 

 





On Dec 27, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Gary Schiltz <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

 

When I studied biology at university back in the 1970s, my recollection is that 
most biologists in those days thought of species as an interbreeding population 
of individuals. Over the years, I've seen this definition give way more and 
more to defining species by genetic differences alone. Though I haven't been 
professionally a biologist for over 40 years (if ever), my life as a 
birdwatcher (and occasional keeper of coveted lists of species seen) has been 
affected by this shift. Based on genetic analysis (possibly tempered by studies 
of behavior, range, morphology), bird species are frequently "split" into two 
or more separate groups, either "subspecies", "races", or even full blown 
"species" (yay!! I've seen both those, add another species to my life list). Or 
the converse is also true - based on genetic analysis (tempered as above), 
ornithological consensus will deem two or more species to be merely different 
races or subspecies of one species, which we refer to as "lumping" (boo!!! lost 
some bragging rights about my life list).

 

I asked an ornithologist friend about this a couple of years ago. I've always 
been a "lumper" at heart, even if it does result in my life list being shorter. 
To me, if two individuals decide to mate, and produce offspring, they ought to 
be considered the same species. Maybe adding the requirement that the offspring 
are themselves fertile and able to produce fertile offspring. My ornithologist 
friend seems pretty firmly in the camp that defines species by their genetics. 
I asked him if this wasn't rather arbitrary, and the only thing I remember him 
mentioning (which I never followed up on studying) was the notion of a "clade". 
I won't comment further on that, since I know absolutely nothing about clades.

 

As a side note, we certainly don't classify currently living Homo sapiens 
individuals into different species, but then I don't know if the genetic 
differences among different races of people are more, or less, significant than 
that of some other animal species. This would, of course, be hugely (and 
justifiably, I believe) unpopular among us humans. I asked my parrots what they 
think, and they just chewed on the furniture more. I don't know if that 
signifies agreement or disagreement with my ornithologist friend.

 

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 11:54 AM <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/25/discovery-of-cryptic-species-shows-earth-is-even-more-biologically-diverse-aoe
 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fenvironment%2f2020%2fdec%2f25%2fdiscovery-of-cryptic-species-shows-earth-is-even-more-biologically-diverse-aoe&c=E,1,d8ssUiHUP3tLETjJmf50cEcV2upLKBND2qQAnwF__EwkcPtRZ4gDe8VeZoMCaUPYDxPsgQn0SuGFhkQvCAdrBxfgzxgbKmjGgeVhwULSGv75Zs7h4RD5BgK8B7U,&typo=1>
 

So what IS a species?  A level of distinctness of design, a degree of genetic 
differentiation, or an interbreeding population?  And what happens to Darwinism 
when these things turn out to be not particularly well correlated, in the way 
that the signs and symptoms of hunger turned out to be not so well correlated 
as the Cartesian model would require?  Steve Guerin:  if you want to demolish 
Darwinism, here is where you start. 

Nick  

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,foGr69X29NwVBuhs5_OYQsbJMROEpdBEUDaYJD1iY8L2FLC2CV4ss33T0HL7EUm_QBBNKm3Lx2dp7GjtkILLrvvsBdt7_3M3zwUnWvS4_jC-Ll6X-uo,&typo=1>
 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,fIgA-f_L-FPHCVSbwL_DIGYAiH3XWc41guN_B0ayBDafV2MTyIO_tWpra4FLXDFX4xAqAyUcyc7pYm6Hw6vK0x_JkrIA7CgSiLRu2qWznPU,&typo=1>
 
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Dqlg85Dlbuh8fbdXUEq7uvapBNdOg8XOpZzaapnWLbLn2rRUWnzaTwvIkcLtX3s3LKD4I_M1k4B6yN24IPubDI5mFl6poR6n1wpp0m1O&typo=1>
  

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com
 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,y_Hvb_aasSNzzcMDqntU2KFzJv3N3lbHwjuRS0OptrCSlKUFotBrXNXU20_UjsE7JPfODuGECNKv3NgxJJQOY6mDsU4y_X02_PEO9Lrvg-vgqmOqtrc,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,y_Hvb_aasSNzzcMDqntU2KFzJv3N3lbHwjuRS0OptrCSlKUFotBrXNXU20_UjsE7JPfODuGECNKv3NgxJJQOY6mDsU4y_X02_PEO9Lrvg-vgqmOqtrc,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,rt2S6zpgWOLuXwtQXbSXIEwoHSy-RBi8nR31x0zs29bhQROtIQJsvnX2OCxdVDn5UDf6w52Z_vc3Cg5iKj0RZAzSDNKtmMrXM0u8WW-3yfCMcN_rLnU,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,rt2S6zpgWOLuXwtQXbSXIEwoHSy-RBi8nR31x0zs29bhQROtIQJsvnX2OCxdVDn5UDf6w52Z_vc3Cg5iKj0RZAzSDNKtmMrXM0u8WW-3yfCMcN_rLnU,&typo=1
 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Reply via email to