Hi Jim (and Michael)
Mayr gives a worthy defense of the biological species concept (BSC). It has
many merits, but also some practical problems. The BSC is also difficult to
apply to asexual reproducing creatures and fossil organisms. Support for the
BSC appears strongest among veterbrate zoologists and entomologists (Mayr is an
ornithologist), none of which are truly asexual (although some are
parthnogenic). Botanists, palaeontologists, and coral taxonomists (to name just
a few) have problems with the the BSC.
There are at least eight different definitions of species out there: folk,
biological, morphological, genetic, palaeontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic
and biosystematic. Joseph Boxhorn, in the first link I gave
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html> has a short but useful
review of four of these, folk, biological, morphological, and phylogenetic.
respectfully
Jon
"Hofmann, Jim" wrote:
> Here's an on-line article that addresses some of the relevant issues:
>
> "What is a Species, and What is Not?"
> by ERNST MAYR
>
> http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/dbsr/EVOLUT/mayr.htm
>
> Jim Hofmann
> Philosophy Department and Liberal Studies Program
> California State University Fullerton
> http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 16:35:05 EST