Species is only Taxonomic level that is "real"
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Troy Hibbitts on December 30, 1998 at 18:35:56:
In Reply to: Re: Lampropeltis triangulum and the definition of "species" posted by John A. on December 30, 1998 at 12:20:38:
Systemacists hold that "species" is the only level of taxonomy that is "real" - all others (Kingdom, Phylum, etc, etc) are categories of convenience. Over recent years, there has been a movement to make the higher levels of taxonomy more closely reflect evolutionary history (i.e. "real"ity), but this has met with great resistance, as it would do away with the old categories (Kingdom, Phylum, etc) and add to the list of names (one name for each "clade", or evolutionary grouping of organisms . . . and names would include ancestors, etc . . . mammals would therefore become "the first common ancestor of living marsupials, monotremes, and placentals).
Anyway, species, IN CONCEPT, represent real groups of organisms . . . organisms with their own evolutionary trajectories, history, and fate . . . i.e they are separate from all other organisms (reproductively isolated, either by biology, behavior, allopatry, etc). It is simply failure of humans, through inadequate data or inadequate analysis of data, that causes species to be misidentified, etc. But nature "knows" what a species is . . . each species "knows" what a species is . . . you know that you are a human, right? My dog knows that she is a dog and not a cat . . . etc, etc.
Troy
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
