3 ms·
That doesn't seem like a useful definition. There is no case where subspecies could not also satisfy that definition. It's a distinction without a difference.
by alphazard 1y ago
That doesn't seem like a useful definition. There is no case where subspecies could not also satisfy that definition. It's a distinction without a difference.
- meindnoch 1y agoYeah. I think it's a synonym. I'd consider it a linguistic quirk, like how we use the term "carcass" for the body of a dead animal, but we use "corpse" for humans.
- nomel 1y agoMuch of it, at that level, is a mostly arbitrary construct, with blurry boundaries, left to subjective interpretation, made up long before the very new concept of genetic analysis was even a thing, where a more informed hierarchy could be made. Even then, the end bits of the hierarchy turn into a knotted mess a generation or two after you remove a river or mountain. Categorization is a fundamental part of our intelligence, but not necessarily a reflection of reality.