4 ms·
For 1. No, it is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes can all interbreed with each other. But even if you treat all dogs as
by neaden 5y ago
For 1. No, it is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes can all interbreed with each other. But even if you treat all dogs as one species, they can't actually all interbreed with eachother without human intervention due to size differences. Then there are ring species, which can breed with two separate species that cannot breed with each other. That isn't even getting into species that can asexually reproduce.
- antognini 5y agoThere was a nice article in The Economist a few months back describing the issues with coming up with a good definition of "species": https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-species/21803917 https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-spe...
- catlikesshrimp 5y agoThat concept (populations which can share genes) is for species which have sexual reproduction. For populations which require special conditions, you can talk about subspecies. But not for the rest of lifeforms. Bacteria reproduce by cloning themselves and they can share genes laterally (between adults). And viruses are really more similar to computer viruses with intended replication errors than a lifeform.
- neaden 5y agoWell some species have both sexual and asexual reproduction, many trees can self fertilize or fertilize with another trees pollen for instance.