Re: Examples of new species

From: Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 17:42:52 EST

  • Next message: M.B.Roberts: "Re: Examples of new species"

    Please tell us more about Darwin and Herbert. Most intriguing!

    Jon

    "M.B.Roberts" wrote:

    > The chief problem to a geologist over the BSC is that no one has ever seen
    > fossils mate though Beverley Halstead tried to act it out wearing a dinosaur
    > suit.
    >
    > I am fully aware of the problems of definition which in itself negates the
    > fixity of species.
    >
    > To continue in the same vein. One of the first to challenge the fixity of
    > species was The Hon and Very Rev William Herbert, the Dean of Manchester
    > Cathedral. Darwin visited him in May 1847 and the poor old dean died a few
    > hours later. History of science is fun!
    >
    > Michael
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
    > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 9:35 PM
    > Subject: Re: Examples of new species
    >
    > > 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 - 18:00:23 EST