Definition of "species"

1_iron 1_iron at
Fri Sep 7 04:40:10 EDT 2001


I am somewhat aghast at the responses to what I consider a simple question.
Mathematics, for example, begins with definitions - and progresses no
further until each definition is set in stone. "A point is that which has no
parts." begins Euclid, and goes on to define lines and the like. Upon  these
definitions are built an elegant structure. Why should the science of
Biology be any different?

I can understand the filing of similar species in genera folders, similar
genera into families, etc., as an attempt to understand kinships about which
reasonable people might disagree. However, the basic (and as I requested,
black-and-white) definition of "species" MUST be something all can agree -
or we are not talking about the same thing.

Until you get your act together, I shall deem a species to be defined by
fertile offspring, and I shall deny there is such a thing as a subspecies.
How can there be under the above definition?

And I shall go on in my ignorance and isolation enjoying my moths.

Jim Taylor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Leps-l mailing list