[FRIAM] Discovery of 'cryptic species' shows Earth is even more biologically diverse | Wildlife | The Guardian

[Gary Schiltz]

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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/25/discovery-of-cryptic-species-shows-earth-is-even-more-biologically-diverse-aoe
>
> 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
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201227/d4f98a45/attachment.html>