Hi Dave:
I get your point. As a layman, I always assumed a species was defined
by appearance (visual and physical traits) and the fact that one
species wouldn't usually hybridize with others in the same genus or
family. If populations of a species were separated by range or
barriers, then appearance, behaviour, calls and songs would determine
if each was a separate species in its own right or just a sub-species.
Then DNA analysis came along........
Cheers,
John
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Dave Torr <> wrote:
>
> On 3 January 2013 21:15, John Wright <> wrote:
>>
>> Good one, Bob! I second that motion...
>>
>> <>
>> But back to species vs sub-species, it should be very simple to
>> compare DNA and decide once an for all, and very quickly as well...but
>> I guess then at lot of ornithologists would be out of a job!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Robert Inglis <> wrote:
>> > From all this passionate discussion on taxonomies I am assuming that
>> > someone (or some committee) has finally come up with a viable,
>> > scientifically based and universally accepted definition of “a species”.
>> >
>> > Would someone be so kind as to tell me what that definition is.
>> >
>> > Bob Inglis
>> > Sandstone Point
>> > Qld
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > send the message:
>> > unsubscribe
>> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > to:
>> >
>> > http://birding-aus.org
>> > ===============================
>> ===============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ===============================
>
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
