I suspect it is not the "change over time" that is the issue, because that
scale of time is longer than the scope of current bureaucratic issues. However
that the change occurs over time but that we are at a particular point in time,
so that it is obvious that at any one point in time there will be some species
that are in a stable state and easily defined, especially if no other close
relatives still exist (think for example of the platypus), whereas other
species will be at a stage of variation at which it is hard to set dividing
lines as to the boundaries of particular species.
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: Birding-Aus On Behalf Of
Dave Torr
Sent: Thursday, 1 June, 2017 6:00 PM
To: L&L Knight
Cc: birding-aus
Subject: Taxonomical Anarchy Hampers Conservation
If one accepts evolution then surely the corollary is that species change
over time. Else there would probably only be one species of bird
Or am I missing something?
On 1 Jun 2017 17:58, "Laurie Knight" <> wrote:
> Steve Garnett and Les Christidis say
>
> "The assumption that species are fixed entities1 underpins every
> international agreement on biodiversity conservation, all national
> environmental legislation and the efforts of many individuals and
> organizations to safeguard plants and animals. Yet for a discipline aiming
> to impose order on the natural world, taxonomy (the classification of
> complex organisms) is remarkably anarchic.”
>
> See today’s edition of Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/
> taxonomy-anarchy-hampers-conservation-1.22064
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
