Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I’m now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It’s amazing I haven’t been arrested.
There’s multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it’s trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn’t really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, district boundaries:
downvoting because it’s not really true what you said. sure there’s always exceptions in biology that don’t fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it’s a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn’t make the rule meaningless though.
Honestly your first picture could also be a good example to demonstrate ring species, which are a great countertexample to the “reproduce to produce fertile offspring” definition of species.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
No, but the criteria is 1. Interbreeding is possible and 2. Can produce fertile offspring
JillyB@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I’m now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It’s amazing I haven’t been arrested.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
There’s multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it’s trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn’t really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, district boundaries:
abstract picture with rows of distinct colors with clear boundaries
But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:
abstract picture with a few colors overlapping each other and areas with no color
You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there’ll always be some weird edges that don’t really fit.
showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
As a visual learner this really helped me to understand. +1 good explaining. I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
downvoting because it’s not really true what you said. sure there’s always exceptions in biology that don’t fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it’s a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn’t make the rule meaningless though.
Zagorath@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Honestly your first picture could also be a good example to demonstrate ring species, which are a great countertexample to the “reproduce to produce fertile offspring” definition of species.
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Does that mean 3. Desire to do so?