The mind boggles! Can we have both?
Jon
"M.B.Roberts" wrote:
> 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 - 18:25:12 EST