3 ms·

It's certainly a tree of individuals, though with single-celled division even that is not clear. Things get tricky when you talk about species, because species

It's certainly a tree of individuals, though with single-celled division even that is not clear. Things get tricky when you talk about species, because species are (arbitrary?) equivalency classes of individuals.

Tagbert 4y ago
Species are approximations that can be useful to discuss populations but they are very fuzzy at the edges. There is not single definition of species that applies in all cases. In that sense they are somewhat arbitrary but terms can be arbitrary and useful at the same time.
- lurquer 4y ago
  It seems the article is merely about the ‘wonder’ and ‘Eureka’ moment of realizing one’s definition of species is over or under inclusive. To summarize the article (using a more familiar animal): Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are different species… Yet they can reproduce! Good god, that means they were once the same species, then different species, and now the same species again! My minds blown! Silly…
  - em-bee 4y ago
    that was my thought too. the general principle hasn't changed, just the understanding of how much divergence is necessary before the branches are truly separate. what's surprising is that it took so long to realize that. we only need to look at dogs to see an immense variety that is still interbreedable. and if dogs can, why not sharks or bears? i think the only reason we don't don't see that more often is because they each live in different habitats and opportunities for interbreeding are rare. i expect genetics will be able to give a better answer as to how much variety is needed before interbreeding no longer works.
    - AlotOfReading 4y ago
      There isn't a single answer to give re: the viability of interbreeding. It depends on the particular individuals and the particulars of their offspring and a whole lot of environmental luck besides. As individuals get farther apart, the chances of successful reproduction simply decrease. Beyond a certain point, fertilization simply ceases to take place and the issue is moot. In general, the babies that are born have already passed through a nightmarishly difficult biological gauntlet to survive. If they fail at any stage, the pregnancy is simply terminated. The majority of fertilizations never lead to births as a result.
      - lurquer 4y ago
        It isn’t a continuum, though. There are distinct discontinuities. Chromosome count is one such example. Polar bears and grizzlies have 74 chromosomes. A panda has 42. You can’t gradually go from one to the other. Absent some mechanism we don’t know about, conception simply doesn’t work when the sperm and eggs have different numbers of chromosomes. To be clear, the concept of chromosome isn’t as objective as one might think… nevertheless, it’s an example of the type of genetic difference that simply precludes reproduction.
        AlotOfReading 4y ago
        Horses and Donkeys have differing numbers of chromosomes and yet (extremely rarely) produce fertile mules. In a more common case, women with down's syndrome have an extra chromosome and yet are sometimes fertile. I understand that this is extremely common with plants, but that's pretty far outside my wheelhouse. I don't think we're disagreeing here, just simplifying like all conversations about biology.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Also applies to "individuals". It's all fuzzy

Tagbert 4y ago

Species are approximations that can be useful to discuss populations but they are very fuzzy at the edges. There is not single definition of species that applies in all cases. In that sense they are somewhat arbitrary but terms can be arbitrary and useful at the same time.

lurquer 4y ago
It seems the article is merely about the ‘wonder’ and ‘Eureka’ moment of realizing one’s definition of species is over or under inclusive. To summarize the article (using a more familiar animal): Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are different species… Yet they can reproduce! Good god, that means they were once the same species, then different species, and now the same species again! My minds blown! Silly…
- em-bee 4y ago
  that was my thought too. the general principle hasn't changed, just the understanding of how much divergence is necessary before the branches are truly separate. what's surprising is that it took so long to realize that. we only need to look at dogs to see an immense variety that is still interbreedable. and if dogs can, why not sharks or bears? i think the only reason we don't don't see that more often is because they each live in different habitats and opportunities for interbreeding are rare. i expect genetics will be able to give a better answer as to how much variety is needed before interbreeding no longer works.
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    There isn't a single answer to give re: the viability of interbreeding. It depends on the particular individuals and the particulars of their offspring and a whole lot of environmental luck besides. As individuals get farther apart, the chances of successful reproduction simply decrease. Beyond a certain point, fertilization simply ceases to take place and the issue is moot. In general, the babies that are born have already passed through a nightmarishly difficult biological gauntlet to survive. If they fail at any stage, the pregnancy is simply terminated. The majority of fertilizations never lead to births as a result.
    - lurquer 4y ago
      It isn’t a continuum, though. There are distinct discontinuities. Chromosome count is one such example. Polar bears and grizzlies have 74 chromosomes. A panda has 42. You can’t gradually go from one to the other. Absent some mechanism we don’t know about, conception simply doesn’t work when the sperm and eggs have different numbers of chromosomes. To be clear, the concept of chromosome isn’t as objective as one might think… nevertheless, it’s an example of the type of genetic difference that simply precludes reproduction.
      - AlotOfReading 4y ago
        Horses and Donkeys have differing numbers of chromosomes and yet (extremely rarely) produce fertile mules. In a more common case, women with down's syndrome have an extra chromosome and yet are sometimes fertile. I understand that this is extremely common with plants, but that's pretty far outside my wheelhouse. I don't think we're disagreeing here, just simplifying like all conversations about biology.
pphysch 4y ago
Also applies to "individuals". It's all fuzzy