CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kurt Auffenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists of America List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:07:55 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Dear all:
 
Here's my definition of a species.  If the last reviewer said the taxon is
a species, it is.  If the next reviewer changes the status of the taxon,
then I revise my definition of THAT species.  That simple.  I go back to my
old adage: Know thy creature!  The last reviewer most definitely knows that
creature better than I.  If not, then I should become the next reviewer.
The only thing for certain in this biology stuff, is that there is nothing
for certain.  There is no simple, black/white definition of a species (or
at least there shouldn't be).
Hugs,
Kurt
 
 
 
t 09:57 PM 10/22/98 PDT, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I am a species too, and what a species. And I don't have grandchildren,
>even children. A full species is able to make grandchildren, but there
>is no need as in human species. And a species has a lot to do with
>nomenclature and the nomenclature with species. Sorry for the moment
>I can't find the rules of nomenclature explaining what is a species.
>On a ceertain place can be living two species but not two subspecies.
>So you can see that species is more than a subspecies. Anybody
>- also the most silly and slowest in the uptake (I don't know any
>other word) could clearly see that Conus marmoreus and Conus
>gloriamaris are two different species. So I'll close the discussiion
>about species forever.
>
>yours Helmut Nisters from Innsbruck.
>
>----------
>>
>> It sounds great, Andy and Art! But...
>>
>> What about any Homo sapiens who does not (whether fertile or
>> not) HAVE grandchildren? They can't be a member of the species
>> because they did not achieve this criterion.
>>
>> There have been fertile couples who have had children but, due
>> various reasons, had no grandchild born to their offspring. These
>> people, also, would not be recognizable as Homo sapiens, having
>> failed the "true" test of a species.
>>
>> Is there some way to modify this idea to make it more applicable?
>> Maybe the test for Equus sp. won't work with us.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> makuabob (a.k.a. Bob Dayle)
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2