[Taxacom] Neanderthals a species? (was: barcode of life)

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Mon Jul 19 10:50:04 CDT 2010


Gray areas? These definitions work fine for the taxa they work fine for.
Extending the definitions to taxa that are not large mammals and birds
is more than iffy, it's metaphysical. 


We want it to be so, though. 

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Manning
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:43 AM
To: Stephen Thorpe; Richard Pyle; Kenneth Kinman;
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Neanderthals a species? (was: barcode of life)
I seem to remember being taught that Biological Species were genetically
and morphologically different and not or hardly interfertile, subspecies
were morphologically and genetically distinct in some identifiable way
but interfertile if given the chance (usually if not always occupying
different habitats) and varieties were morphologically distinct but not
genetically distinct, their morphological differences being attributed
to differences in their environment (as evidenced by them being
indistinguishable from another variety when examples of each were
planted together under the same environmental conditions).  All of those
admittedly have a geographical/ecological slant rather than taxonomic
and of course I am sure gray areas exist around each of the above
definitions.




More information about the Taxacom mailing list