Fwd: Re: species concepts 1

[warrena at bcc.orst.edu]

I sent this just to Ron but meant to send it to 
everyone...  

----- Forwarded message from warrena at bcc.orst.edu -----
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:53:42 -0800 (PST)
From: warrena at bcc.orst.edu
Reply-To: warrena at bcc.orst.edu
Subject: Re: species concepts 1
To: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>


This brings up one question:

If the entire spectrum of living organisms is way too 
diverse to classify using the same terms, why 
are "species" used for all groups (except, arguably 
from some perspectives, asexual organisms)?

Andy  

Quoting Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>:

> 
> 
> Note here that species "concept" is singular and
> in the snipped part is
> applied relative to all species of all life
> forms.
> snip
> > 
> Here again a singular shoe for multiple feet.
> 
> It seems that this discussion always beings at
> this impossible horizon.
> There is no orientation here as everything from
> microbes to mammals have
> been brought up and all lumped together.  This
> is like making one big pile
> of bricks, lumber and steel (= all _kinds_ of
> biota) and then pointing to
> _it_ as if it was a materially single entity and
> then making the statement
> that "Construction workers have no _one_
> substance or device that can be
> applied to this _one_ pile to equally join the
> materials in the building
> process."     This is meaningless.  It is
> impossible because different
> forms of life work very differently - just like
> brick, wood, and steel.
> This is like asking someone to jump up and sit
> down at exactly the same
> time and then, when we see they can not do so,
> coming to the conclusion
> that it is not possible to either jump up or sit
> down.
> 
> Of course there is no one construction material
> that functions with brick,
> wood, and steel =  Of course there is no one
> "systematics" or "taxonomy"
> which universally applies to all biota.  This is
> why there are different
> Codes, terms, methods, etc between botanists,
> zoologists and
> bacteriologists.  This is why we use mortar on
> brick -  nails on wood -
> welds on steel.  Plant people have never had
> "subspecies". But they sure as
> heck have had _and do have_ "varieties".  
> Bacteriologists use the word
> strains not subspecies.  (Brick/mortar -
> beetle/subspecies.  Wood/nail -
> plant/variety.  Steel/weld - bacteria/strain. 
> Different terms for things
> that have an exact  parallel function but in
> very different ways.)   A
> plant taxonomist could say to his colleagues. 
> "We should stop using the
> term "variety" because zoologists never use this
> term."   To which another
> botanist might say.  " Of course they don't,
> their Code does not recognize
> the term "variety".  They use the term
> subspecies instead."  Then we have
> asexual and sexual reproduction.   All kinds of
> totally unrelated
> (nonequivalent) stuff.

> Ron
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
------
> 
> 
>    For subscription and related information
> about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  
> 

----- End forwarded message -----

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl