Paul Erlich, the noted population ecologist, was talking at the University
of Queensland last night, and he said that the question of what is a species
is unimportant and meaningless. Small populations of a particular "species"
are always going extinct locally and built up again by recruitment from
outside the area.
His definition of a species is that it is what is accepted as a species by a
taxonomist.
I personally think there is much to be said in favour of his argument. As he
pointed out at the talk, we are observing a cross section in time of
evolution. IMHO, partitioning a three dimensional evolutionary bush into
separate species on some two dimensional criteria is arrogant and pointless.
Only well after the event can one point out the families and orders, which
may evolved from minor differences in the past.
To spend much time wondering if a parrot (all credit for finding it by the
way) is a good species or sub-species is pointless. It is rare and should be
preserved.
Tim Murphy
PS. For my world bird list I follow Clements, who, thank God, does not
recognise the 24 (or whatever) Albatross species, so I don't worry about
them. My opinion is that they are no more good species than the Caspian
Terns which I have seen in Toronto and in Brisbane are seperate good
species. Erlich touched on how isolated populations stay as single species.
If I understood him, it is because the evolutionary pressures force the
birds into similarity - but that is a gross oversimplification.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Behalf Of John Murray
Penhallurick
Sent: Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'David Stowe'; 'Syd Curtis'
Cc:
Subject: Species concepts 1
Hi all,
Re Phylogenetic and Biological Species.
Michael Wink & I wrote in our 2004 paper:
==========
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
