Keith B Miller wrote:
> >Pray, what is a species?
> >
> >This is a very serious question.
>
> There are several different definitions. The standard biological species
> definition is "a population of interbreeding individuals that is
> reproductively isolated from other such populations under natural
> conditions." This provides a good theoretical definition but is often
> difficult to apply in real situation in the field and is obviously not
> applicable to the fossil record.
>
> In practice what is commonly used is a morphological definition. In this
> case, anatomical variation within a species is less than that between
> species. Maintaining anatomical distinctions between coexisting
> populations (or those in direct contact) would seem to require a degree of
> genetic isolation sufficient to prevent the mixing of gene pools (ie they
> are reproductively isolated). the existence of populations (or fossil
> collections) with statistically distinct anatomies is thus considered a
> basis for species designation.
>
> There are now also those who advocate using genetic divergence as a
> criteria for recognizing species.
Is there any evidence that there is a specific amount (even
approximately) of genetic divergence which results in reproductively isolated
populations? I.e., is it likely that there is a 1-1 correlation between
criterion 3 and criterion 1?
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 10:52:29 EST