[Taxacom] Species Definition?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue May 23 00:28:15 CDT 2017

No, wait!  Please don't automatically delete this message based on the
subject line!

Still with me?  Cool.

I was curious if anyone read this:

And if so, whether you agree with the subtitle, "As DNA techniques let us
see animals in finer and finer gradients, the old definition is falling
apart"?  We all know that people are (ab)using genetic data to draw
ever-finer lines among groups of organisms and labelling them with
Linnean-style names (binomens, no less). But it's not clear to me whether
this represents an evolving consensus on what we mean by "species", or if it
is really more reflective of using a shiny new toy to boost one's CV/tenure

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, the de-facto definition of a
"species" hasn't changed since Darwin's time, paraphrased as "a species is
what a community of taxonomists says it is".  But my question is about
whether the baseline for what the community "says it is" has changed/is
changing)?  Or, in the long run will we retain roughly the same
within-taxon-group gestalt that we've generally had for a while now?

And if the consensus really is evolving, is that a good thing (more
recognition of biodiversity)? Or a bad thing (increasing incongruence with
historical knowledge)?  My vote is to keep the best of both worlds and have
a massive increase in the use of trinomials, but I imagine that statement
will be seen by many as a troll.


Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist | Dive Safety Officer
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu,
HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

More information about the Taxacom mailing list