Comment on You have to be orchidding me!
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks agoThere’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.
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.
Lol, have you not seen the OP or have ever looked at plant taxonomy before? There are many different angiosperm groups where it is dubious if we can apply some sort of species concept.
And you talk about the species concept as if there was only just one?
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.
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.