loudmouth writes:
The correct definition is: "Organism A and Organism B, in the wild, do not have offspring that have offspring of their own, therefore they are different species." Speciation is about genetic isolation which the change in chirality creates.
I see what you mean, but I don't think there really is a
'correct' version - the definition of speciation seems to depend on what type of scientist you are.
The strictest definition of BCS does not incorporate the 'in the wild caveat'(from
Observed Instances of Speciation):
that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."
It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and
ignores what goes on in nature.
seems to be held by mainly by 'vertebrate zoologists and entomologists.'
Then you have phenetic/morphologic species concept, and I still don't really understand which definition botanists prefer.
I think the least fuzzy, albeit most restrictive, definition of speciation is the strictest interpretation of BCS.
Sure organism A and B may no longer have any 'interest' in breeding (say Canis Lupus and Canis Domesticus - not the greatest example though), and probably wouldn't or couldn't do so in the wild, but under controlled conditions (artificial insemination say) A-B could still produce viable, reproductive offspring.
I think this strict interpretation is necessary when debating very literal minded creationists who would simply argue that even though organisms A & B don't reproduce in nature, the still COULD reproduce and thus aren't really seperate species.
This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 00:47 AM