Fw: Re: Definition of "species"

mbpi at juno.com mbpi at juno.com
Fri Sep 7 20:57:17 EDT 2001

Drat!  I always mean to send my comments to the list, but I send them to
the individual instead...  (I know Ron can take it...)


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <mbpi at juno.com>
To: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:45:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Definition of "species"
Message-ID: <20010907.194653.-196427.1.mbpi at juno.com>

It's all very simple and clear to me:  "Species" is an arbitrary "common
name" applied to a number of individuals with shared characteristics.  It
really doesn't matter what those shared characteristics are:  the
definition can change with the perception, study and research of the
person(s) equating it.  Hence all the disaggreements :-)

Mary Beth Prondzinski

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 05:44:55 -0400 "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: 1_iron 
>   To: Leps-L 
>   Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:40 AM
>   Subject: Definition of "species"
>   Snips of some good stuff.
>   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?
>   ____________________________
>       Jim, you have hit a clear note. Precisely. It is the lack of a 
> clear understanding of what a species is - that prevents some from 
> having a clue to what subspecies are. The first thing is that there 
> is nothing "sub" about them. Actually, they are just the opposite. 
> They are that "new" part of the species that is going up to the next 
> reproductively isolated step on the ladder toward becoming another 
> species. No new species has ever come into its own without first 
> being a "sub" (new part)  of something else. 
>   This is the third Law of Evolution. "To come into being an 
> organism must first exist as part of something else.  This something 
> else must be a stabilized replicating  entity. The advancing part 
> becomes the new organism."  Don't even ask what Ron's first Law of 
> Evolution is. Most won't even want to hear it as they would probably 
> get upset by it. This law would then apply to single organisms or 
> groups of them. One individual or group replicating after its kind 
> gives rise to another individual or group(s) replicating after 
> its(their) kind. This also means that all living things exist as 
> either past parental parts (subs) or advancing parts (subs) of the 
> entire biota.
>   Ron
>   There are only three Laws of Evolution.

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list