212

You have to be orchidding me! (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, but the criteria is 1. Interbreeding is possible and 2. Can produce fertile offspring

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_(animal)

[-] JillyB@beehaw.org 10 points 3 months ago

Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.

I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.

I'm now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn't even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It's amazing I haven't been arrested.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it's trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn't really exist.

species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:

abstract picture with rows of distinct colors with clear boundaries

But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:

abstract picture with a few colors overlapping each other and areas with no color

You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there'll always be some weird edges that don't really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 1 points 3 months ago

Honestly your first picture could also be a good example to demonstrate ring species, which are a great countertexample to the "reproduce to produce fertile offspring" definition of species.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)