Are species real?

[Nathan Herrick]

The real question is "are population genetics definitive of species" until now yes i suggest the future will tell


Nathan 

-- Richard Pyle <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> wrote:
Don Colless' warning notwithstanding (been down the "definition of 'real'"
path before; don't plan to go down it again)....

...in answer to Curtis' question: don't many biologists define evolution as
a change in gene frequencies over time; everything else being ultimatley
just a matter of scale?

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Curtis Clark
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Are species real?
>
>
> On 2006-04-10 11:31, Richard Pyle wrote:
> > I don't buy the argument that the
> > existence of quantifiable character clusters means that species are
> > "real" -- for either plants or animals.
>
> If species aren't real, then how can phylogenies be real? And if
> phylogenies aren't real, isn't evolution just population genetics?
>
> --
> Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
> Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062