You will have to wait. I am going to bed.
Wouldn't you rather hear about Dariwn's Fanny? It's more fun than evolution.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:42 PM
Subject: 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 - 18:10:15 EST