4 ms·
So there seem to be three separate issues with the concept of "species" as used in (pop?) biology, speaking as a non-biologist CS type of person: * The "interb
by codeflo 4y ago
So there seem to be three separate issues with the concept of "species" as used in (pop?) biology, speaking as a non-biologist CS type of person:
* The "interbreeds with" relation isn't transitive: population A may interbreed with B, B with C, but A not with C. Examples are observed in nature today, and must have existed many many times historically. This makes any attempt at building tree arrangement of species inherently logically suspect, purely from a data structure point of view.
* There are some cultural expectations around the term "species" that seem to thwart attempts at coming up with a clear definition. For example, we really seem to want to classify dogs as a species distinct from wolves, whether that logically make sense or not. This seems similar to people really wanting to classify Europe as a continent, regardless of plate tectonics or land masses or any other objective criterion. For a counter-example, the physics community at some point went "fuck historical precedent, we need a precise definition of 'planet'" and excluded Pluto.
* We also want to use the term "species" for organisms that don't sexually breed at all, necessitating different definitions for these cases.
All of this leads to Wikipedia defining the word "species" in this hilarious way: "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, DNA sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In addition, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined."
That's all fine, but with definitions like that, apparent contradictions shouldn't be a surprise, and formulations like "breaking the tree of life" are clear hyperbole.
PS: I'd love for actual biologists to correct any misunderstandings I might have!
- culi 4y agoThe truth is that the definition of "species" even within published science can vary widely between different parts of the ~~tree~~ network of life If botanists really tried to maintain the idea that different species can't interbreed with each other then we'd have a LOT less species of plants. In some discussions, such as with the taxonomy of oaks which are notoriously difficult to classify into species, definitions can even vary from author to author and can be based on morphology, phylogeny, distribution, or, most often, some blend of elements from all of the above