science

18681 readers

149 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

laverabe@lemmy.zip

-12

Why the Definition of species should be 2 creatures that can produce fertile offspring. (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by Sackeshi@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is so much discussion and uncertainty on species when its really very simple. We can add categories under species for more specificity but the definition of species must be objective and true. A species is any group of creatures that can reproduce and produce fertile off spring. This is a clear line that objectively determines where 1 species ends and where 1 species begins.

Now we can use another term either subspecies or breed, which can be described as a population within a species that predominantly reproduces within their subgroup. Problem solved? This allows for cases where 2 subgroups of animals can reproduce with each other but rarely do and completes the tree/pyramid of life.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

That doesn’t define a whole species, it just establishes that a pair of organisms belong to the same species. And most randomly-selected pairs of conspecific organisms would fail this test: if both organisms are the same sex, or if either one is immature or infertile.

And in order to define species unambiguously, this pairwise test would have to be transitive, but IRL it isn’t: there are cases where a member of population A can produce offspring with members of population B, and members of B can produce offspring with members of C, but members of A can’t produce offspring with members of C.

[–] Sackeshi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

wow, so there are continuums. In that case group B is the "transitional" group between species A and C or the common ancestor between the 2. I guess we'd need a category for this situation. What a mess. Maybe "Intraspecies".

It just feels wrong to leave the tree/pyramid of life incomplete as far as categorizing.

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

You're kind of just looking at an arbitrary resolution of life and getting hung up on categorizing.

At the end of the day, we are made up of complex chains of DNA and RNA and proteins and all of the building blocks of that came from rocks floating in space.

We know this to be true, weve found the precursors and building blocks of life in asteroid samples we've taken back to Earth.

Life begins way before what you consider to be a species.

[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

At the end of the day it sucks but there's no perfect way to do it. Grouping organisms into species is very useful in a lot of ways, as is grouping and classifying lots of other natural phenomena, but nature doesn't necessarily follow clean definitions even if it's useful to us.