BISTON BETULARIA

[John Grehan]

Ken Philip wrote

>	I have never before heard the claim that the BSC is typological.
>One could equally well say the phylogenetic species concept is typological!

Yes

>The BSC covers large variations in both phenotype and genotype. It is true
>that species described under the BSC have type specimens--but that has
>nothing to do with 'typology' as such.

Agreed, and I never made any such assertion.

 The type merely anchors the name
>to a specimen, so if the taxon is split at some later time we'll know
>which branch carries the original name, provided that the type can be
>assigned to one of the branches.


Agreed. I never said or implied a connection between the current use of 
types and typology.

By _any_ definition, a member of a species
>will share some characters (including its phylogeny) with other members
>of that species--if that's 'typology' then typology is not a very useful
>concept.

When the notion of of sharing comes down to a spatiotemporally unrestricted
essence (i.e. something that makes the species a species regardless of time
or place) then one is thinking typologically. All attempts at a
definitional approach
to species appear to fall into a typological category - for all that they
may be
dressed up in modern biology.

>	If I sound a bit dogmatic/arrogant/elitist, you'll have to excuse
>me. 

If we have the courage or our convictions we might all fall into this
category.

>
>							Ken Philip
>fnkwp at uaf.edu
>
>
>
>