4 ms·

I'm not sure your comment is relevant to the discussion. The concept of species, when it involves sexual reproduction, is pretty straight-forward: mating produc

by rualca 6y ago

I'm not sure your comment is relevant to the discussion. The concept of species, when it involves sexual reproduction, is pretty straight-forward: mating produces fertile offspring. Your remark is only relevant when nit-picking corner cases involving asexual reproduction, which I don't expect to be the case in Neanderthal-Human cross-breeding.

detaro 6y ago
No, their remark is also relevant for sexual reproduction. They even provide a link with more details!
- rualca 6y ago
  It really isn't. In higher mammals the basic property of generating fertile offspring through sexual reproduction is clear-cut and undisputed. The only discussion there is in the species problem is in reaching consensus on a general definition that is common to all taxonomy levels and regardless of type of reproduction. Hence the species problem being a debate regarding generic traits, and which should count and not count, hoping to form a common definition.
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    If you haven't read the literature just say so. This is an actual topic of debate between real anthropologists and has been for decades. I think everyone sort of got tired of hashing it out with all the recent tree-rewriting going on, but it's still unresolved. Here's an example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.004
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      They still have a valid point in that we don’t have a better definition of species than sexual compatibility. One could construct a theoretical ring species that encompasses all life on earth If the inner connections have not gone extinct
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The Wikipedia article lists several ring species of small rodents and bats - or do these not count as higher mammals?
  - mcv 6y ago
    > "In higher mammals the basic property of generating fertile offspring through sexual reproduction is clear-cut and undisputed." What's undisputed is that there are plenty of species that can and occasionally will interbreed, and yet are still considered separate species. Wolves and coyotes, for example. Horses and donkeys are famous for producing infertile offspring, but occasionally, that offspring is still fertile. So it's not a clear-cut on/off situation. There's a gradual scale from fertility to infertility. The edges of the old definition of species can get very fuzzy. For this reason, biologists these days tend to talk more in terms of populations than species.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      Or Bison and Cattle: separate species, yet only four herds of American Bison are left that don't have Cattle genetics mixed in.

by rualca 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

No, their remark is also relevant for sexual reproduction. They even provide a link with more details!

rualca 6y ago
It really isn't. In higher mammals the basic property of generating fertile offspring through sexual reproduction is clear-cut and undisputed. The only discussion there is in the species problem is in reaching consensus on a general definition that is common to all taxonomy levels and regardless of type of reproduction. Hence the species problem being a debate regarding generic traits, and which should count and not count, hoping to form a common definition.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  If you haven't read the literature just say so. This is an actual topic of debate between real anthropologists and has been for decades. I think everyone sort of got tired of hashing it out with all the recent tree-rewriting going on, but it's still unresolved. Here's an example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.04.004
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    They still have a valid point in that we don’t have a better definition of species than sexual compatibility. One could construct a theoretical ring species that encompasses all life on earth If the inner connections have not gone extinct
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The Wikipedia article lists several ring species of small rodents and bats - or do these not count as higher mammals?
- mcv 6y ago
  > "In higher mammals the basic property of generating fertile offspring through sexual reproduction is clear-cut and undisputed." What's undisputed is that there are plenty of species that can and occasionally will interbreed, and yet are still considered separate species. Wolves and coyotes, for example. Horses and donkeys are famous for producing infertile offspring, but occasionally, that offspring is still fertile. So it's not a clear-cut on/off situation. There's a gradual scale from fertility to infertility. The edges of the old definition of species can get very fuzzy. For this reason, biologists these days tend to talk more in terms of populations than species.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Or Bison and Cattle: separate species, yet only four herds of American Bison are left that don't have Cattle genetics mixed in.