>     Is there any basic definition of species that can be agreed on
>by all disciplines and biological interests? What I am looking for is
>a "backing off" from that which applies to Mollusks or Fungi or
>Eubacteria or Californians, and encompasses all. It would be a simple
>statement which would be further enhanced under a sub-staement for
>each specific discipline.
>   Just because we don't got it now, doesn't mean it isn't out there
>somewhere.
>       Art
 
Anything that is primarily or exclusively reproducing asexually requires
somewhat different definitions than sexually reproducing organisms.  This
is an issue for mollusks, as parthenogenesis occurs in some groups (Lasaea,
for example).  Also, some taxonomic groups seem to have distinct forms that
nevertheless can interbreed rather freely (oaks, for example).  The level
of morphologic and genetic variability is also variable between taxonomic
groups.  Bacteria, being tiny, are hard to tell apart unless they have
distinctive chemistry or colony form, and this is hard to determine if they
die when put in a petri dish.
 
Nevertheless, there does seem to be validity to the idea of "species".
Gary, in his Encyclopedia of Seashells, notes a pretty good correspondance
between the "species" recognized by an Aboriginal tribe that extensively
utilizes mollusks and those recognized by conventional systematics.  In
general, we seem to have an idea of what constitutes a species but absolute
definitions seem to cause problems in some cases.
 
 
David Campbell
 
"Old Seashells"
 
Department of Geology
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
USA
 
919-962-0685
FAX 919-966-4519
 
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The
Gold Bug