What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Subspecies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jmorlan" data-source="post: 1810708" data-attributes="member: 1564"><p>The reason the BSC is successful is that it maps onto a biological reality which is digital, not analog. If there were no such thing as biological species, then all individuals would be able to reproduce with every other individual. Elephants could hybridize with mushrooms. What would such a world look like. It's really absurd to deny that there are biological entities which prefer to mate with their own kind. Nor should the existence of positive assortative mating be taken for granted. It is not something we humans made up so we could catalog birds the way we catalog rocks. </p><p></p><p>This is not to say that there are not cases of evolutionary intermediacy. If speciation is an evolutionary process, that is not unexpected. But to focus on the borderline cases at the expense of the vast array of unique biological entities is not particularly productive.</p><p></p><p>I will admit that the BSC does not work all that well for asexually reproducing organisms and that other species concepts may do a better job at describing such situations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jmorlan, post: 1810708, member: 1564"] The reason the BSC is successful is that it maps onto a biological reality which is digital, not analog. If there were no such thing as biological species, then all individuals would be able to reproduce with every other individual. Elephants could hybridize with mushrooms. What would such a world look like. It's really absurd to deny that there are biological entities which prefer to mate with their own kind. Nor should the existence of positive assortative mating be taken for granted. It is not something we humans made up so we could catalog birds the way we catalog rocks. This is not to say that there are not cases of evolutionary intermediacy. If speciation is an evolutionary process, that is not unexpected. But to focus on the borderline cases at the expense of the vast array of unique biological entities is not particularly productive. I will admit that the BSC does not work all that well for asexually reproducing organisms and that other species concepts may do a better job at describing such situations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Subspecies
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top