Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dbeka_X t1_j6atw1b wrote

Reply to comment by copiouscoper in Has a new animal species evolved since mankind’s existence? by coding_ac

It is only flimsy if used incompletely: Two organisms belong to two different species if they do not reproduce - the keyword would be „reproductive community“. This can be due to genetical /anatomical differences or (!) because they don’t share the same ecological niche.

This definition does not apply to organisms that reproduce non-sexually.

5

ZekeDarwin t1_j6bs61q wrote

Nah, absolutely not a certain metric. Biologists deal with life, and life is super complex. Way too complex to categorize into the little boxes that we desire.

Hybridization is very common in the animal kingdom, way more common than we realized in the early days of taxonomy… centuries before dna would be discovered.

7

Dbeka_X t1_j6cjpgk wrote

We talk about science. The art of science is it to put the real world into categories. No categories no science.

I wonder what "Hybridization is very common in the animal kingdom" does mean. Any data? Usually Hybrids are sterile, so there is no effect on natural occurring species - see here. And: Hybrids are no species. I understood that occuring hybridization is a result of the anthropocene.

Taxonomy may be old but species is the central unit of evolutionary biology. The concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, who knew about DNA. Indeed the idea behind it all is that genes can be shared by all members of a given species. When gene flow is hampered by barriers populations can differentiate. Genetic differentiation will lead to phenotypic differentiation. New species are born.

−2