Well of course that depends on your species concept. You have included both
phylogenetic (PSC) and biological (BSC) in your post.
May I suggest you consider CSU's Grad Cert in Ornithology. This is one of the
subjects we studied.
BSC states that species a species are groups of actually or potentially
interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other
such groups. Species are thus regarded as more or less close genetic systems,
such that, if hybridisation occurs, it is limited in some way, and does not
result in a fusion of two separate gene pools.
The main alternative to the BSC is the PSC in which species are defined as
recognisable images: a species is the smallest diagnosable cluster of
individual organisms within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and
descent. Any criterion – whether morphological behavioural or genetic – can be
used to identify individuals is belonging to the same diagnose be different
lineage provided that the criteria I genetically controlled, and results from
evolution. Where is BSC is defined primarily by lack of interbreeding for PSC
this is merely one of several possible criteria, allowing for the possibility
that interbreeding maybe retained or transient trait.
Regards
Alastair
On 04/01/2013, at 8:28 AM, John Wright <> wrote:
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
===============================
===============================
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
===============================
|
