Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 4:24 PM
32 online now:
dwise1, edge, Faith, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, xongsmith (10 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,654 Year: 6,691/19,786 Month: 1,232/1,581 Week: 54/393 Day: 37/17 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


(1)
Message 28 of 450 (537998)
12-02-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stagamancer
12-01-2009 2:49 PM


The species concept is very important to taxonomists whose job it is to classify living things. I’ll use plants for examples here because I am most familiar with them but I suspect animals wouldn’t be all that different. Plant taxonomists use differences in morphological characteristics to separate and assign species. Sometimes these differences are quite small and taxonomists are not always in agreement. There are “lumpers” who ignore small differences and assign two or more closely related organisms to the same species while “splitters” would assign each to a different, although very closely related, species.

Collected specimens of dried plants are kept in a herbarium. There are many herbaria, both public and private, in various locations throughout the world. There are one or more specimens of each species designated as the “type specimen”. Curiously, the type specimen need not be typical of the species. But if the original description of the species refers to a particular specimen, that specimen is designated the “holotype” for that species.

There are sets of rules for naming both animals and plants. The International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is a set of rules for naming animals. The International Code for Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) is a set of rules for naming plants. Both of these have written codes as well as governing bodies that take up taxonomic issues periodically. Just thought I would mention this in case anyone is interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stagamancer, posted 12-01-2009 2:49 PM Stagamancer has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2009 9:38 PM penstemo has responded

    
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 31 of 450 (538259)
12-04-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
12-04-2009 9:38 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
Link to ICZN:

http://www.iczn.org/

Link to ICBN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBN

I'm not sure how cladistics is going to bear on taxonomy. That's something that I haven't done much research on. DNA testing is the way of the future, I believe, for both plants and animals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2009 9:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM penstemo has responded

    
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 32 of 450 (538261)
12-04-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by penstemo
12-04-2009 10:10 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
From a brief read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon

I don't believe cladistics is going to have much effect at the species level and the next two higher taxonomic ranks- genus and family. But at the higher levels of class, phylum etc. it probably will be important. Field botanists like myself work at the lower levels- species, genus, and family- and leave the higher levels to the so-called experts who often disagree. That's why I think DNA testing will be important in sorting out some, if not all, taxonomic problems.

Edited by penstemo, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:10 PM penstemo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 11:38 PM penstemo has not yet responded

    
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 33 of 450 (538266)
12-04-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by penstemo
12-04-2009 10:41 PM


Re: cladistic definition of species?
Some clarification why I don't think cladistics is going to have much effect on lower taxonomic levels. Plants in a single genus usually have a close phylogenetic relationship, i. e. they evolved from a common ancestor. Plants in a single family usually have a close phylogenetic relationship, i. e. they evolved from a common ancestor. So it seems to me that this is consistent with cladistics.

I offer the following quote from Wikipedia in support of the above statements. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics)

Since the early 20th century, Linnaean taxonomists have generally attempted to make at least family- and lower-level taxa (i.e. those regulated by the codes of nomenclature) monophyletic.

A monophyletic group is one which evolved from a common ancestor. Thus we see that under the Linnaean system of taxonomy a basis for a cladistic interpretation is in place at the lower taxonomic levels, although there are probably some exceptions.

Despite the growing popularity of cladistics, the traditional Linnaean
system is not likely to be replaced in the near future.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode

Edited by penstemo, : More info added

Edited by penstemo, : Added more info


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by penstemo, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM penstemo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 8:06 AM penstemo has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019