Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:25:37 -0700 From: Steve Hinkson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3094$foo@default> Subject: definitions
> > I personally believe many cp "species" are color and / or
> > shape variations and not genetically different enough to be
> > separated taxonomically.
[ I'm not sure I understand this part. Are you saying you
don't like the definition of species? ]
I'd dearly love to hear a comprehensible definition of species from
anyone involved in modern Botany.
[Are you sure you meant
"genetically" and not "morphologically".
Otherwise you seem
to contradict yourself.]
No, Dave, here's where you seem to lack the original focus of
taxonomy, as does much of Botany.
Taxonomy is an attempt to categorize plant genetic relationships.
What's related to what. Unfortunately, to this point, taxonomy has
relied on very subjective observations of morphology.
I believe that genetically similar plants, with different expressions
of those genes are the same species.
I believe your confusion in my seeming contradiction lies in your
belief in the validity of morphology showing genetic differences. It
does, but to what extent does the expression of one gene over another
denote a species?
["After all you get different colors as
each plant (or clone) within a species has different genetics.]
True. So blonds are a species? I knew that's why I didn't seem to
comunicate well .
[ Really, you feel 'subspecies' and 'variations' and 'forms'
aren't accurate enough to use? I mean you even used the word
variations. If shoe fits...]
Oh! For God's sake, Dave, Please don't confuse English with Botanical
Jargon ! That's the kiss of death for ever getting back !
> > But then, using botanical taxonomy criteria, I'd split to 4
> > and dozens of species of the genus Homo.
[ Well, there are a fair amount of species in the genus Homo,
it's just that for but one, all the rest have gone extinct. :)
I'm really curious now, though. How would you split up Homo?
I would have three main groups: Asiatic and Native American,
Caucasoid, Negroid. I think if you want to divide further, it's
a waste, 'cause just about everyone else is a mix of these
three with a little regional flavoring thrown in. In a several
hundred years (or thousands), what started out an obviously
mixed people will become a lot more homogeneous, they (and
other's too) might even believe they're a separate 'race'.
To any anthropologists on the list: Sorry for the over-
Sorry you don't "get" sarcasm. I wasn't serious. *wink* But you
might admit that by botanical standards of "morphology" not only
would there be a few new genera of Homo, but there'd be hundreds of
species. Just saw a "new sub-species" Brazilian Orchid described that
underwent a morphological change in it's third year, so it
"qualified" Guess that'd make balding men a sub-species?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:03 PST