Definition of "species"

[Grkovich, Alex]

Just a thought: If there are no subspecies, then in fact there is no
evolution. And if there is no evolution, there is only a static, dead, dull,
and dying world.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	1_iron [SMTP:1_iron at msn.com]
> Sent:	Friday, September 07, 2001 4:40 AM
> To:	Leps-L
> Subject:	Definition of "species"
> 
> Folks:
> 
> 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
> 

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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