3 ms·
If only it was! But then we discovered "ring species" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) which threw a monk
by openasocket 10y ago
If only it was! But then we discovered "ring species" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) which threw a monkey wrench into what was once a simple definition. Basically, there are populations of animals A, B and C, where A and B can inter-breed, B and C can inter-breed, but A and C can't. So our definition of species no longer satisfies the transitive property, and it all falls apart. As far as I know, this issue hasn't yet been satisfactorily answered in the case of ring species.
- danieltillett 10y agoA species is just a human construct to make it easier to understand biological diversity. In the real world living things are never black and white.
- rrauenza 10y ago...except Zebras?
- danieltillett 10y agoEven zebras are not black and white - more a dark brown and cream ;)
- J5892 10y agoDepends on the camera.
- Dylan16807 10y agoWe discovered setups where A, B, and C exist at the same time in different places. That's interesting, but it's not a new challenge. The very simplest version of evolution also involves A, B, and C, existing at different times in the same place. The difference with a ring species is that you can't dodge the complexity by ignoring extinct things. But the complexity was always there.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago> then we discovered "ring species" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) which threw a monkey wrench into what was once a simple definition Well, ok, we documented some ring species. That had no effect on the biological species concept, though. It never satisfied the transitive property.