# Definition of "Species"



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

This is probably one for the biology geeks out there.
I have been reading a fair bit about evolution lately and one thing that comes up a lot (generally in arguments between creationists and evolutionists) is speciation and what defines "species". This has got me thinking a lot about herp genetics. It's my understanding that animals when animals undergo speciation they are said to become different species when they can no longer breed together. However, we have seen people breeding different species of snakes together (examples like the woma ball or whatever it's called and jagpondro come to mind). So basically I guess my question is how do these animals reproduce together if the general definition of species states that they shouldn't be able to?
Also, thinking of other animals, why have dogs not undergone speciation? Surely at least some pure breeds have been separated from the rest of the breeds to allow this to occur?


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 12, 2011)

From my limited understanding and my brief talks with a few ecologist/natural scientist.
The definition of a species is under-going radical change. 
Also it gets more complicated with different animals, so do all creatures get judged the same? That was my question.


----------



## longqi (May 12, 2011)

Very good question and hopefully some interesting debate on this one


----------



## Jazzz (May 12, 2011)

when 2 animals can produce fertile offspring is major factor. like a tiger and a lion produce an infertile liger


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 12, 2011)

Dog and Dingo?


----------



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

So are woma balls and carpondros infertile?


----------



## CamdeJong (May 12, 2011)

I have the same problem with taxonomy, a while back I was discussing a related topic on here and made my opinion based on the idea that species are defined partially by the fact that they have diverged far enough that their anatomy, behaviour or range to stop them from interbreeding. Then I learned that species like Pogona barbata and vitticeps can breed, and that was only the start of it. Ball x Womas and such things render the Morelia spilota group, and subspecies definition itself, moot when considering it from a breeding perspective. If species from separate Genera or even Families can cross then species shouldn't be defined by that. 
In terms of dogs I don't believe normal evolution will ever apply. Natural selection doesn't apply when we decide what environment an animal lives in and its survival depends on us.


----------



## Jazzz (May 12, 2011)

yeah thats why i said it was a major factor... i didnt know any species that it didnt apply to until i learnt about the snake cross breeds. Dogs and dingos can produce fertile offspring although they have only just become separate species. They only separated from dogs a few thousand years ago though so i dont think they have evolved enough separately.


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 12, 2011)

Cool thanks for the info! Might ask a friend about this!


----------



## Jonno from ERD (May 12, 2011)

The inability to interbreed is not a set diagnostic characteristic when definining what constitutes a valid species. 

Taxonomy will never be an exact science. Science is forever trying to formally categorise what are simply points on a continuum. It will always be a matter of contention.


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (May 12, 2011)

Ctenotus (Robustus in particular) is a good example.


----------



## lace90 (May 12, 2011)

There are different species concepts that taxonomic use when defining species. The Biological Species Concept is the one most if you are discussing with the reproductive factor. There are many others that can be used for species definitions. As long as it is stated what concept was used in the description, which is not always done and therefore it is difficult to dispute the species if changes are found, then things should be clear. As a taxonomy student, I get so frustrated that there is not some uniformity, even just among classes, so that all species within that clad have been described using the same concept. Frustrating! And then you have to question the purpose of turning morphs it localities into subspecies or splitting species when the original concept is still in place??
For the insect species that I am splitting into multiple, i have proof that no hybridising has occurred for many generations WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN EXISTING IN SYMPATRY, look it up its important!, and I can then use the BSC as I said above. But when put together in an artificial environment, there is the possibility that cross breeding can occur. Such a tricky business.


----------



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

Hmm interesting Lace thanks. I was hoping you'd have some input here 
Jazz what is the new species that Dingos come under? Wiki still has them as a Canis lupus dingo


----------



## Jazzz (May 12, 2011)

it used to be Canis familiaris dingo, i think it changed early 90s


----------



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

Oh right. So does that mean the dog used to be classified as a different species to the grey wolf (C. lupus) as well?


----------



## Jazzz (May 12, 2011)

yeah it used to be Canis familiarus domesticus. It got changed at the same time as the dingo =]


----------



## fugawi (May 12, 2011)

I think, we, as humans, are compelled to try to put things in boxes and try to have everything nice, neat, tidy and categorised. Sometimes things don't fit into our boxes, so we just make a bigger box and lump them together.


----------



## dihsmaj (May 12, 2011)

saximus said:


> So are woma balls and carpondros infertile?


If Woma balls were infertile, how would there be any Woma pythons?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 12, 2011)

This extract from Wikipedia should answer the last few questions:

“The Australian *Dingo* or *Warrigal* is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia, mainly found in the outback. Its original ancestors are thought to have arrived with humans from southeast Asia thousands of years ago, when dogs were still relatively undomesticated and closer to their wild Asian Gray Wolf parent species, _Canis lupus_. Since then, living largely apart from people and other dogs, together with the demands of Australian ecology, has caused them to develop features and instincts that distinguish them from all other canines. Dingoes have maintained ancient characteristics that unite them, along with other primitive dogs, into a taxon named after them, _Canis lupus dingo_, and has separated them from the domestic dog, _Canis lupus familiaris_.”

All dogs are the same species as the wolf. It is only at the sub-species level they are split up.

Blue


----------



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

Plimpy said:


> If Woma balls were infertile, how would there be any Woma pythons?


 That makes no sense

Thanks Blue. Helpful as always


----------



## dihsmaj (May 12, 2011)

saximus said:


> That makes no sense
> 
> Thanks Blue. Helpful as always


 
I was making a joke. It was innuendo. 'Woma balls'


----------



## saximus (May 12, 2011)

lol oh man I can't believe I didn't get that. Sorry


----------



## Cockney_Red (May 12, 2011)

A pony film, with a top sort in it...


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 12, 2011)

To understand the concept of *species* and its limitations, I believe you need to have a broader appreciation of what taxonomy is about. When we look around at the natural world we see different types of organisms. These organisms reproduce to make young that are similar to the adults. Adult Grey Kangaroos produce baby Grey Kangaroos, Lemon Scented Gums produce seedling Lemon Scented Gums, Red Bellied Black Snakes produce baby Red Bellied Blacks Snakes and so on. So the notion that the natural world is populated by different types of organisms has been long established. Once humans had time to start thinking more about the world they lived in, instead of where their next meal was coming from, they started to notice that you could pretty much divide organisms into two groups. One group were stationary and put down roots to hold them in place. The other group were mobile. Upon closer inspection, early investigators found other consistent differences between these two groups. Then they started to look at each group. The closer they looked, the more they realised that within each group there smaller groups. Each smaller group was consistent – all those animals with internal skeleton vs those without, all those plants with flowers vs those without etc.

Over time science has built up a schema for grouping organisms, starting from some major groupings, with fundamental differences between them, down to individual types of organisms. There are seven levels of grouping they developed – Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Groupings have been developed pretty much by looking at it from both ends and tweaking it to give the best fit. This, then, is a man-made system of grouping designed to reflect the natural order of things. It provide a workable way to deal with the multitude of living things on the planet. It summarise information into groups and helps facilitates the learning, as you need only remember the characteristics of the group and not those of each individual separately. 
In reflecting the “natural order” I am referring to the fact that the system of classification reflects the phylogeny (evolutionary lineage) of organisms. 

When the system was developed, they had no understanding of genetics and inheritance. That new species developed from previously existing species – they just did not know how. We now have a much better appreciation and recognise that the process of evolutionary change occurs gradually, rather than in discrete leaps, through accumulated genetic change in a population. So as Jonno pointed out, where on that continuum of change do you draw the lines – when does one species become a new species; or harder still, as Lace pointed out, what constitutes a sub-species? (if not certain what a species is?)

That’s your background (minus a fair wack of detail). Probably the most used definition of a species is: “*A group of organisms that can, and do breed, to produce viable and fertile offspring under natural conditions*”. 

As the lady said, easy to distinguish when you have two groups occupying the same distribution (sympatric) - that includes an overlap in distributions. Basically, if two morphologically similar populations are sympatric and are not interbreeding, then they are two separate species. They may, in fact, be able to breed and produce viable and fertile offspring. However, if they are not doing that under natural conditions, then the species rule holds. It gets sticky with those groups that are allopatric (occupy different distributions). 

For populations of organisms that don’t have overlapping populations, the question is what degree of genetic difference warrants allocation to another species? There isn’t a straight-forward answer to this. It gets down to experience, an “informed opinion” and using other forms of evidence to make the assessment. So someone with experience looking at genetic profiles of closely related species versus the degree of genetic variance with populations that are one species, is relied upon to make that call. Part of the problem is that then somebody of similar background may come along at a later date and revise that call.

Much of our reptile taxonomy has been developed on morphology. Certain features that one group possesses and others don’t is indicative of genetic isolation of the gene pools. In other words, they are not interbreeding with similar groups that have different morphological traits. Morphology is still considered important but it’s limitations are more recognised these days.

Last little complication to throw into the mix is the slack taxonomist. If you are going to reclassify a certain species what you should do is to examine all the specimens held in museums under that species name. One of theses will be the original type specimen and then there will often be supporting specimens held by the same museum. Problem is, there can also be supporting specimens held in Britain, Germany, South Africa and other museums that made collections in Australia. So a thorough taxonomic review of even one species can be rather expensive and time consuming. Some taxonomists have taken short cuts and we are left to wear the back wash. Because they got in first, they get full recognition and credence, whether deserving of it or otherwise. It does not happen too often but the legacy it leaves when it does is a bit of a nightmare.

Blue


----------



## jpemery (May 12, 2011)

i would have to agree with lacy in that the definition of a species varies however the general idea is that its the capability on a two animals interbreeding and producing viable offspring in a natural environment. this does not always play true though as highlighted in Richard Dawkins book An Ancestors Tale where he takes two different "species" of cichlid fish which are genetically very similar and live side by side yet never interbreed in the wild yet when placed together in a tank they bred. Interesting though i must say, and as lacy said becomes very confusing.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 13, 2011)

I think you may have missed th point of clarification in Paragraph 5: "They may, in fact, be able to breed and produce viable and fertile offspring. However, if they are not doing that under natural conditions, then the species rule holds." A species is not defined solely on its ability to interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring. The reason the definition of a species varies is that it is impractical and often impossible to determine if two organisms would in fact breed under natural conditions. so you need to use some other, more pragmatic criteria on which to base their taxonomic description. Under captive conditions is not at all uncommon for similar species to interbreed and some will in fact produce viable and fertile offspring i.e. fertile hybrids.

Plant taxonimist use a different set of criteria for delineating species. I cannot comment on taxony in the other kingdoms.

Blue


----------



## longqi (May 13, 2011)

This is getting more interesting
A lot of crop plants such as tomatoes are hybrids that cannot be pollinated
This is done deliberately so that farmers have to buy new seedlings every crop


----------



## saximus (May 13, 2011)

Ok so I think my original question has been answered to a reasonable degree. Does anyone have any idea about the speciation in dogs (or any other "pure breed" animals) thing? Is it just because it takes longer for speciation to occur than we have been pure breeding?
Also why can species reproduce in captivity when they otherwise wouldn't in the wild?


----------



## Nighthawk (May 13, 2011)

Jonno from ERD said:


> The inability to interbreed is not a set diagnostic characteristic when definining what constitutes a valid species.
> 
> Taxonomy will never be an exact science. Science is forever trying to formally categorise what are simply points on a continuum. It will always be a matter of contention.



Exactly. It brings to mind the advice my lecturer gave us first day of macrobiology: "Your first year you'll find out 'what is'. Your second year you'll discover we're not sure. Your third year we'll finally let you know we don't have an effing (censored lol) clue and it's *your* job to find out. No life science is exact, it changes every day."


----------



## saximus (May 13, 2011)

Haha I love lecturers like that


----------



## Wallypod (May 13, 2011)

Jannico said:


> Dog and Dingo?


 i think aussie cattle dogs have a little dingo in them, i am sure some one will correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## lace90 (May 13, 2011)

Different organism classifications speciate at different rates, due to differences in generation time, hox genes, if they are specialised or not etc ... there are so many factors. For mammals it takes many many years, most likely millions, for speciation to occur. Dogs from all around the world, whether domestic or wild, have been tracked back to a single 'type' from which then diverged across continents - and this happened relatively recently. Domestication occurred more recently than this still, and then the line breeding of 'breeds' even more recent. All these animals can be crossbred, and are all within the one species grouping, due to the number of fixed genes within all the dogs. There is not enough genetic distance (yet) to stop interbreering and allow speciation...and until their genes stop being mixed, which is seen so much in aus with dingo/domestic hybrids, speciation will not occur.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 14, 2011)

saximus said:


> Does anyone have any idea about the speciation in dogs (or any other "pure breed" animals) thing? Is it just because it takes longer for speciation to occur than we have been pure breeding?


 There is often an expectation that animals like dogs, which display such a range of different physical characteristics, should surely be made up of more than one species. I suspect this expectation is reinforced by using reptile field guides. For example, any group of species such as geckoes or skinks are distinguished by colour and pattern. From this, the obvious inference is that this is what distinguishes one species from the next. Then look at a group like dogs in which the same characteristics show massive variation yet you are told that are all the one species. That does not add up!

Most of the species of reptiles described in Australia were done from pickled specimens in jars. Consequently morphology is the prime taxonomic tool used. What the average reptile enthusiast does not know is the amount of detail that goes into the morphological description produced in describing a new species. A large range of features and substantial number of measurements is involved. In stark contrast, the list of features given in your standard reptile text come field guide is very small. Mostly pattern, colour, scales, pores and s-v length in adults. As a result, one naturally tends to infer that animals differing in these features should be separate species. The reality is that it requires a lot more than just those readily seen differences in appearance to warrant species status. The same applies to dogs. A quick example from the reptile world - _Diplodactylus pulcher_ can have a pattern virtually identical to _D. galeatus_ through to identical to _D. vittatus_ – so how much emphasis would you put on pattern in delineating a new species?

The genes that control the characteristics in which domestic dogs differ are a small percentage of their total gene pool. Secondly, they still share the same set of base characteristics but vary in the form (shape, size, colour, length, etc) of these. I am unaware of any new characteristics having been developed as a result of a significant change in one or more genes but there may be some, but not many I’d warrant. Dogs have the longest history of domestication. Estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 years. Through artificial selection, specific variations in the characteristics have been selected for, in exactly the same way as the different colours and patterns are line bred in snakes and lizards. Given the time man has been selecting specific forms of characteristics in dogs, the number and degree of variations is significantly more than for other domesticated animals. The bottom line is that all breeds of domestic dog are still capable of producing viable and fertile offspring if crossed. Size difference might prevent that occurring naturally but artificial insemination would give the results. So basically there simply hasn’t been sufficient genetic change for speciation. Those changes that have taken place are more apparent than substantial. 

The rate of speciation in animals varies according to a number of things, such as the amount of selective pressureon differentiating the two populations, whether there is zero or limited gene flow beween the two populations, the rate of natural genetic mutations within those organisms, random chance of what mutations are produced, the length (time) of the reproductive cycle, the fecundity, the 'ability' of the organism to produce massive genetic change such as alteration in the number of chromosomes (almost exclusively plants but not always).

Blue

PS: Sorry! I did not realise others had posted before I put this up, so please forgive the repetition. I have left it because the majority is about why it seems a reasonable expectation that breeds of dogs could or should constitute separate species and yet it isn’t. 




saximus said:


> Also why can species reproduce in captivity when they otherwise wouldn't in the wild?


For speciation to occur, populations within a species must be separated and remain so for the time it take to become separate species (as Lace90 pointed out). If they come back together and remain genetically isolated by not inter-breeding, then they will remain as two species and will continue to evolve separately. What normally stops them from interbreeding are behavioural barriers. For example, amphibian populations which have developed a different mating call, lizards which have developed different mating displays, snakes that have developed altered pheromones. In a captive situation, if the animal they see is similar to them and they have done their calling, or displaying or laid down their pheromone trail, the drive to reproduce can easily over-come any reservations. 
Brian Bush et al in Reptiles and Frogs in the Bush: Southwestern Australia, have a photo of a male Motorbike Frog in amplexus with a Western Banjo Frog (Pobblebonk) in the wild. I would imagine the Motorbike Frog had been calling for a female and the poor old Pobblebonk just happened to swim by in the dark at the wrong moment. In a captive situation where the partners to choose from are few, the chances of that happening are dramatically increased.

Blue


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 20, 2011)

Ok Bluetongue, your replies have been very informative (although mostly what I have already heard from my taxonomist father) and well written so a few points and then a few questions further delving into species related issues. I would love for Bluetongue to reply but others feel free to as well. 

Pt1


> _Diplodactylus pulcher_ can have a pattern virtually identical to _D. galeatus_ through to identical to _D. vittatus_ – so how much emphasis would you put on pattern in delineating a new species?


Diplodactylus pulcher is very different to East coast through to Adelaide coastal pops of D.vittatus. These coastal pops (and a little line of less coastal pops) are what are currently defined as true D.vittatus. Other somewhat recently discovered (split) species that occur in WA can be extremely similar and identical in pattern. However the structural morphology is still different. (Anyone that looks at the nose of D.pulcher next to any D.previously vittatus or granariensis will instantly be able to tell the difference.) I realise you are speaking particularly about pattern, but that these species are still morphologically dissimilar is valid. A better example possibly is D.pulcher to D.klugei which in almost all singular (as in those not made up of many averaged specimens) respects are next to identical. 

Pt.2


> The genes that control the characteristics in which domestic dogs differ are a small percentage of their total gene pool. Secondly, they still share the same set of base characteristics but vary in the form (shape, size, colour, length, etc) of these. I am unaware of any new characteristics having been developed as a result of a significant change in one or more genes but there may be some, but not many I’d warrant. Dogs have the longest history of domestication. Estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 years. Through artificial selection, specific variations in the characteristics have been selected for, in exactly the same way as the different colours and patterns are line bred in snakes and lizards. Given the time man has been selecting specific forms of characteristics in dogs, the number and degree of variations is significantly more than for other domesticated animals. The bottom line is that all breeds of domestic dog are still capable of producing viable and fertile offspring if crossed. Size difference might prevent that occurring naturally but artificial insemination would give the results. So basically there simply hasn’t been sufficient genetic change for speciation. Those changes that have taken place are more apparent than substantial.


 So I would say all dogs, dingos and grey/brown/timber wolves are the same species C.lupus. I do not go into a subspecies level it gets to complex and hard to define. However the interesting thing to my mind is more based on defining speciation in a captive animal. If an organism is defined as a species based on its ability to and that it does produce fertile offspring naturally. Than how can we ever define an animal that is not in nature? (I realise dogs are not all captive thus the massive problem with feral dogs and this creates problems with the example.) But this should not take away from the point that captive animals can in a way be viewed as man made things and in a sense based on our definition of species being defined around a concept of the natural perhaps not even be able to count as a 'species'. Of course I above stated dogs are a species and they should be I am simply highlighting a complexity occurring when an animal has been in captivity for so long a time. 

Now for a Question. 
Firstly with genetics now forming a large change in our way to understand relationships and 'speciation' where do you think and based on what reasons do we genetically draw a species line? 
Furthermore what are your opinions on cryptic species (i.e. species that seem obviously disjoint through genetic analysis and do not naturally interbreed to produce a genetic hybrid to the best knowledge of those defining them.). Obviously these species are extremely closely related with either no way to tell them apart without genetics, (or in some cases a pseudo-cryptic species which requires analysis of internal morphology.). But genetics says they are in fact 'different' and while I accept this is fair enough to name a new species, is it really in our best interest to do so? In further explanation of that I ask what is taxonomy. Someone will answer that it is our way of defining species to view them based on relationships and evolutionary divergence. Which is essentially true, but that is not all it is. Taxonomy is our way of defining what something is so 'we' can understand it. So we can look at two animal and answer a question 'what are they' and then use that knowledge to answer 'why and how?'. If we go to the point of defining these species that are so close morphologically we need genetics to tell them apart, then are we really trying to answer why and how they are different? 
I do not believe we truly are I believe we are in many of these cases defining for the sake of defining and not for the sake of the greater perspective of science. 



Another question and this one is more personally based not so much scientifically based. I would love to be a taxonomist when I am older. Understanding what animals are and why has been my passion for as long as I remember and my father (a geneticist, taxonomist and ecologist) has given me great grounding and experience in the area both of the specific and broader questions of these areas, even though I am yet to leave high school. My problem however is that I do not ethically like the concept of collecting and killing animals simply for humans to have an understanding of them. I realise there are approaches that go around this, (i.e. collecting the animal and keeping it captive thus also allowing other research on its behavior and husbandry). But as you I am sure will understand this is not a 'hat' where one 'size' or approach fits all animals. And thus I am not looking for a total answer of 'what I should do', but simply some creative thinking/discussion on ways to look at this problem. 
I understand many say that 'the good coming of understanding these animals through science out-ways the effect on individuals of the species. However I have weighed this strongly and have come to the (probably cynical) view that this is not really the case but an excuse allwoing for the bad behvaior of humans ('we need to understand it so when we build for the good of our species we can protect one patch of it' instead of 'lets just keep our environment good and not threaten this species in the first place') as well as it being a view that we as 'humans' have the right to understand out environment, which although I respect I do want to understand our environment, doing this at the expense of the individual organism is selfishness on the part of us as humans. 

(That posts not too long is it? )


----------



## Elapidae1 (May 20, 2011)

Not yet out of high school? WOW


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 20, 2011)

> Not yet out of high school? WOW



Yr 12 so close and yet so much effort to go. ​


----------



## lace90 (May 20, 2011)

Hey Geck, I am currently doing taxonomic work to delineate between species of a cryptic-species complex. It takes a lot of work, I can tell you that. The reason it is important to differentiate between these particular species is because of their economic importance for the control of botanical pests - they each occupy different host species. Genetically, different. Enough so that across multiple gene regions in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA the species are monophyletically grouped. In this case, I am also using morphology, but this is more for interest as statistically there are no differences.
It must be stated that the species line is drawn at different levels for different species, as long as you make your point clear to its importance and there is enough evidence, you can make new species. Or as happens a lot, collapse species or genus'. As long as you have the time and funding


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 20, 2011)

> Hey Geck, I am currently doing taxonomic work to delineate between species of a cryptic-species complex. It takes a lot of work, I can tell you that. The reason it is important to differentiate between these particular species is because of their economic importance for the control of botanical pests - they each occupy different host species. Genetically, different. Enough so that across multiple gene regions in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA the species are monophyletically grouped. In this case, I am also using morphology, but this is more for interest as statistically there are no differences.
> It must be stated that the species line is drawn at different levels for different species, as long as you make your point clear to its importance and there is enough evidence, you can make new species. Or as happens a lot, collapse species or genus'. As long as you have the time and funding



That sounds interesting and in your case I can see the importance. Thanks for the reply. ​


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 20, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Pt1


 
I simply chose a species that showed strong variation in a feature so frequently used in identification that many presume it is representative of / equates to a different species. I believe that over a long period of time we have subconsciously been conditioned to believe that different species are distinguished on their gross appearance (general external morphology). Pick up any modern field guide and there it is. The point to be taken out of the example used is that features such as colour and pattern and the like, do NOT define a species, whether it’s a gecko or a dog. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> But this should not take away from the point that captive animals can in a way be viewed as man made things and in a sense based on our definition of species being defined around a concept of the natural perhaps not even be able to count as a 'species'.


 
It is possible for dogs to freely breed with wolves. The sorts of things that stop this from happening are that the dog must also be accepted by the pack. If you were to raise a dog and wolf cubs together under semi-natural conditions, it may well be accepted as part of a pack when the animals were released. So maybe it could fulfil the biological definition. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> Firstly with genetics now forming a large change in our way to understand relationships and 'speciation' where do you think and based on what reasons do we genetically draw a species line?


 
The biological definition of a species can be thought of as the baseline. If you are sitting in a museum workshop with a jar full of pickled specimens, the biological definition becomes intractable. However, we don’t simply turf it out the window. Species groups have consistent sets of characteristics (same set of genes) which vary, often within consistent limits. This is shared by the population due to gene flow (biological species definition at work). Using as many specimens as they can access, the taxonomists job it to determine the degree of variation within a sub-set of the total characteristics. From this you can develop a description which defines the species. From that you can select the most useful diagnostic features to use in the field. 

Genetic analysis on examples of established individual species, closely related species and more distant species provides samples of the degree of genetic separation indicative of separate species for those types of animals. I know they use reproductive and mitochondrial DNA, how they amplify DNA using the polymerase chain reaction and what electrophoresis is, but that’s about it. Once they start talking about long fragments versus short fragments, genetic markers and the like, I sit down and shut up (or try not to snore too loudly). 




GeckPhotographer said:


> Obviously these species are extremely closely related with either no way to tell them apart without genetics, (or in some cases a pseudo-cryptic species which requires analysis of internal morphology.). But genetics says they are in fact 'different' and while I accept this is fair enough to name a new species, is it really in our best interest to do so?


 
Two species may well be morphologically indistinguishable. However, what you must bear in mind is that any species has a unique gene pool. As soon as we find any excuse to deliberately send any species to extinction we are saying it’s alright to reduce species diversity on earth, so long as you can come up with good excuse. I make no apologies that it is not alright!!! Biodiversity is what holds the natural world together. It is what gives it its robustness. It is what has allowed it to sustain itself for thousands of millions of years before we came along. It is what drives it forward to cope with physical changes. It is what keeps humanity alive. Unfortunately there are many who live in a fool’s paradise in the misguided belief that the human race is no longer dependent on nature for its continued existence. The sad part of that… they won’t be the ones to foot the bill! There are others reasons often cited, such as we don’t know what chemicals that they may carry that could be helpful to mankind. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> My problem however is that I do not ethically like the concept of collecting and killing animals simply for humans to have an understanding of them.


 
Have you ever eaten fresh fish? Have eaten kangaroo meat or fed it to pets? These are examples of wild taking in which the animals are killed for human consumption or for human pets to do likewise. As far back as 1798, Reverend Thomas Malthus published an essay on populations in which he pointed out that many more offspring are produced than can possibly survive. Let’s illustrate Malthus’ conjecture using a simple example, a gecko with an extremely low reproductive rate – one clutch of 2 eggs per year over a reproductive life of only 3 years. Out of the 6 offspring produced, only 2 are required to “take the place” of the parents to maintain a stable population size. Out of out 6 offspring, 4 CANNOT survive. In other words 2/3 of all the offspring produced MUST perish. 

Of course, in reality nearly all geckoes multi-clutch and three clutches per year is fairly common. They are also reproductively active for longer. So from 6 offspring in our example let’s go to a more realistic, yet still conservative number of 24 offspring produced as a result of three clutches per year over four years. So we now have a more realistic number of 22 individuals that MUST perish (instead of 4) for each 2 parents in the population. Geckoes have low a low reproductive rate. Most other groups/species of reptiles and frogs are lot more fecund. Yet the more offspring produced, the more individuals there will be that cannot survive.

If we do not know what species are out there, how can we effectively control or assist them as required, including affording those that need it the appropriate measures of protection?




GeckPhotographer said:


> If we go to the point of defining these species that are so close morphologically we need genetics to tell them apart, then are we really trying to answer why and how they are different?


 
It is not just about learning about them. It is also about managing them. Refer to the two answers above.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 20, 2011)

> [Two species may well be morphologically indistinguishable. However, what you must bear in mind is that any species has a unique gene pool. As soon as we find any excuse to deliberately send any species to extinction we are saying it’s alright to reduce species diversity on earth, so long as you can come up with good excuse. I make no apologies that it is not alright!!! Biodiversity is what holds the natural world together. It is what gives it its robustness. It is what has allowed it to sustain itself for thousands of millions of years before we came along. It is what drives it forward to cope with physical changes. It is what keeps humanity alive. Unfortunately there are many who live in a fool’s paradise in the misguided belief that the human race is no longer dependent on nature for its continued existence. The sad part of that… they won’t be the ones to foot the bill!There are others reasons often cited, such as we don’t know what chemicals that they may carry that could be helpful to mankind.





> If we do not know what species are out there, how can we effectively control or assist them as required, including affording those that need it the appropriate measures of protection?



I agree with conservation as much as you. Defining species is certainly useful for protecting species and managing species. You do not have to lecture me that every brown skink out there is worth saving. However when we look at animals that are so morphologically similar only genetics can tell them apart. Than we are talking of species that are also extremely closely related in terms of genetics. We are not talking of each genetically separate species something that is going to produce a new chemical or structure that humans can use. In fact the variance between these in a quantifiable useful manner is probably so little that people uninterested in nature would argue, conserve one of the species conserve the all. Obviously I do not agree with that thought, but I do say the 'useful' difference between these species is probably none. 
This is simply my (cynical) but unfortunately probably realistic view on how defining cryptic species is really going to impact on management, based on your point of use to humans. 

Another point is what is our right to interfere with nature? Both in destroying and importantly in saving wildlife, even when we are the cause of its decline. To what degree do we take it upon ourselves to play 'god'. Because whether we accept it or not we are part of nature and our effects on it are natural. Should we just leave nature to adapt around us? 
Once again I think not but it is a question that should definitely be asked to at least some level. 

Now what I said originally and what I stick by is the effect of describing species on human selfishness, and this relates strongly to management of species. When we know we have described species and we know how we can build to leave that species in existence then that gives us the excuse to destroy nature. We lose the view of 'maybe there is something worth saving in this patch of bush' to the new view of 'these species occur here, they are not threatened and also occur there, therefore we can build here.' 
While I can see that a perfect world where human selfishness stops overriding our desire to expand necessitating destruction of nature is pretty much impossible. I am simply arguing that our desire to find out more about nature and protect it is in a way producing the opposite effect in that we lose the bigger picture of nature and look to specifically at the genetic difference between two otherwise identical lizards.

That said you have many good points and I certainly have nothing against the protection of any species or such no matter how similar. 



> Have you ever eaten fresh fish? Have eaten kangaroo meat or fed it to pets? These are examples of wild taking in which the animals are killed for human consumption or for human pets to do likewise. As far back as 1798, Reverend Thomas Malthus published an essay on populations in which he pointed out that many more offspring are produced than can possibly survive. Let’s illustrate Malthus’ conjecture using a simple example, a gecko with an extremely low reproductive rate – one clutch of 2 eggs per year over a reproductive life of only 3 years. Out of the 6 offspring produced, only 2 are required to “take the place” of the parents to maintain a stable population size. Out of out 6 offspring, 4 CANNOT survive. In other words 2/3 of all the offspring produced MUST perish.



Thats a yes and a yes. But I view the taking of meat, (i.e. kangaroo or fish) from nature as a food source for the sustenance of life as different to the taking of specimens for their so called 'benefit'. This comes back to the 'god' view. What gives us the right to choose for a species which individuals of a species should be taken (even at random) for the benefit of a species? This as I am sure you will respect is different to taking individuals of the species for the benefit of ourselves. A selfish act as it may be, I view choosing something for ones own species as far more acceptable than taking individuals of another species for that species. 
My ethical view of this perspective is highly unlikely to change I have seen a lot of arguments about it being for the greater good of the species and while I full accept the truth in these arguments and respect this perspective, my perspective cannot justify the taking of any individual for the 'good' of that species separate to our own. (Even with our own possible benefits as you mention from "chemicals" or such)

All your reasons are good and sound. The opinions I express are simply another view both from mine and other perspectives and I welcome any criticism of any of them as long as it is reasonable and constructive.


----------



## SteveNT (May 20, 2011)

Jannico said:


> Dog and Dingo?



canis familiaris both. 

But where do you draw the line? Humans have different adaptions all over the globe, extra haemoglobin for high country mob, reduced sweat glands for rainforest mob. Are we subspecies? and compared to what?

If you cant make a baby you are not same same species but really we try so hard to put everything into boxes but the boxes are soggy cardboard and it keeps taxonomists in a job, but to me everything that lives- grass. beetles, howler monkeys, lives a life, experiences that life and dies.

Classification is a human trait like war and art.

Nothing else on the planet gives a rat's **** about our attempts to define and catalouge their existance.


----------



## eipper (May 21, 2011)

Geck,

Are you Michael's son?

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

Michael Mahony, yes I am his son.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 21, 2011)

SteveNT said:


> canis familiaris
> grass. beetles, howler monkeys


 
Without classification you would not be able to use these words and your audience would not have a clue either.

Maybe that cardboard is not quite as soggy as you think?

Blue


----------



## saximus (May 21, 2011)

Haha agreed. It's an arbitrary system and there are definitely obvious grey areas but necessary for us to describe the world I think


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

You say there are obvious grey areas, but while I agree it is necessary, I do not find those grey areas so obvious.


----------



## saximus (May 21, 2011)

So does that mean for you there are definite clear lines distinguishing every species? Sorry if you already answered this in an earlier post...


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

No no. I agree there obviously are grey areas I am saying where the boundaries of those grey areas are is not obvious. Sorry if I made it hard to interpret.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 21, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> I agree with conservation as much as you. Defining species is certainly useful for protecting species and managing species. You do not have to lecture me that every brown skink out there is worth saving. However when we look at animals that are so morphologically similar only genetics can tell them apart. Than we are talking of species that are also extremely closely related in terms of genetics. We are not talking of each genetically separate species something that is going to produce a new chemical or structure that humans can use. In fact the variance between these in a quantifiable useful manner is probably so little that people uninterested in nature would argue, conserve one of the species conserve the all. Obviously I do not agree with that thought, but I do say the 'useful' difference between these species is probably none.
> This is simply my (cynical) but unfortunately probably realistic view on how defining cryptic species is really going to impact on management, based on your point of use to humans.


 
Do you understand the processes of evolution and speciation? How does one species become different and form two or more differing species? Do you really think it all happens solely on a morphological level through geographic isolation. What about behavioural isolation. What about biochemical evolution. It does NOT occur through some quantum genetic leap to a clearly and absolutely dissimilar population. It happens through a slow process of genetic change which then allow for divergence. [I personally believ there is much to be gained of our understanding of speciation through the study of morhologically alike but genetically different populations. Only time will tell though.]

Personally, I don’t give a toss _“what people uninterested in nature would probably argue for…”_. I want informed individuals to be making decisions on conservation.

If you look at the grammatical structure of the last line of the paragraph you will notice that my point on use to humans is an add on to what went before - _There are others reasons often cited, such as…”_ This should indicate to you that this particular point is neither essential, nor even critical, to the core of my argument. So please don’t target one fraction of support for an argument and come up thinking you dismantled the lot. As it is with your objection to this point, you quote general probabilities and possible likelihoods. You can do so till the cows come home but it does not negate the possibility. You cannot predict or presume that possibility to be zero.



GeckPhotographer said:


> Another point is what is our right to interfere with nature? Both in destroying and importantly in saving wildlife, even when we are the cause of its decline. To what degree do we take it upon ourselves to play 'god'. Because whether we accept it or not we are part of nature and our effects on it are natural. Should we just leave nature to adapt around us?
> Once again I think not but it is a question that should definitely be asked to at least some level.
> 
> Now what I said originally and what I stick by is the effect of describing species on human selfishness, and this relates strongly to management of species. When we know we have described species and we know how we can build to leave that species in existence then that gives us the excuse to destroy nature. We lose the view of 'maybe there is something worth saving in this patch of bush' to the new view of 'these species occur here, they are not threatened and also occur there, therefore we can build here.'


 



I’m sorry but I think you have completely missed the boat on this one. “_whether we accept it or not we are part of nature and our effects on it are natural_.” You need to get a dictionary and do a bit of reading. You also need to step back and open your eyes a lot wider to the world around you. The natural world is in retreat. The plague called humans is responsible. The notion of “Should we just leave nature to adapt around us?” is childlike in its innocence… I wouldn’t know where to start to get that across, so I am not even going to try. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> While I can see that a perfect world where human selfishness stops overriding our desire to expand necessitating destruction of nature is pretty much impossible. I am simply arguing that our desire to find out more about nature and protect it is in a way producing the opposite effect in that we lose the bigger picture of nature and look to specifically at the genetic difference between two otherwise identical lizards.


 
If I were a working scientist I would be truly offended by that last sentence. You seem to have confused a physical analogy with an ideological one.



GeckPhotographer said:


> Thats a yes and a yes. But I view the taking of meat, (i.e. kangaroo or fish) from nature as a food source for the sustenance of life as different to the taking of specimens for their so called 'benefit'. This comes back to the 'god' view. What gives us the right to choose for a species which individuals of a species should be taken (even at random) for the benefit of a species? This as I am sure you will respect is different to taking individuals of the species for the benefit of ourselves. A selfish act as it may be, I view choosing something for ones own species as far more acceptable than taking individuals of another species for that species.
> My ethical view of this perspective is highly unlikely to change I have seen a lot of arguments about it being for the greater good of the species and while I full accept the truth in these arguments and respect this perspective, my perspective cannot justify the taking of any individual for the 'good' of that species separate to our own. (Even with our own possible benefits as you mention from "chemicals" or such)



I gather you don’t keep pets. Or do you get a papal dispensation so long as they are not randomly selected? Come on. I don’t mind you have an ethical objection to anything, so long as that objection is applied consistently. As best I can make out of the confusion of this paragraph, it is not.

Blue


----------



## fugawi (May 21, 2011)

As far as domestic dogs re-breeding with wild wolves, both the Alaskan Malamute and the Siberian Husky, as part of their original breeding for traits by the Malamut Inuits and their cousins across the Baltic in Siberia, both staked a female in heat outside of the camp/village to allow the Alpha male wolf to impregnate the females to re-introduce wolflike traits needed by the Inuits. It also helped stop the wolves coming too close to the village, after the on heat female husky/malamutes.
An interesting thought on Dingos. When I first had Huskies and saw a dingo close up in person, I couldn't help notice the similarities between Dingos and Huskies from a visual point of view. Aside from colour they were almost indistinguishable from each other. I wonder if a similar thing happened with Dingos as with Huskies, either the Aboriginies bred them with Asian Wolves or they just bred naturally. Interesting thought though.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

> Do you understand the processes of evolution and speciation? How does one species become different and form two or more differing species? Do you really think it all happens on morphological level through geographic isolation. What about behavioural isolation. What about biochemical evolution. It does NOT occur through some quantum genetic leap to a clearly and absolutely dissimilar population.
> 
> Personally, I don’t give a toss _“what people uninterested in nature would probably argue for…”_. I want informed individuals to be making decisions on conservation.
> 
> If you look at the grammatical structure of the last line of the paragraph you will notice that my point on use to humans is an add on to what went before - _There are others reasons often cited, such as…”_ This should indicate to you that this particular point is neither essential, nor even critical, to the core of my argument. So please don’t target one fraction of support for an argument and come up thinking you dismantled the lot. As it is with your objection to this point, you quote general probabilities and possible likelihoods. You can do so till the cows come home but it does not negate the possibility. You cannot predict or presume that possibility to be zero.



Firstly yes I do understand the process of evolution on many fronts. 

Secondly as do I but unfortunately informed individuals are probably not going to end up the driving force in conservation. The driving force in conservation is in human moral that we feel better about ourselves when we do something we perceive as good for the environment. The role of informed individuals in this is to figure what is good for the environment, tell this to those less informed people and hope that in the particular case that moral righteousness overrides any possible benefit they may get such. E.g. development.

Thirdly I nowhere said this was the crux of your argument. I am simply saying that the saving of cryptic species for human benefit through new chemicals or such is as comparable to saving every individual organism on this planet for every individual mutation, variation and possible. Why do I say this, if there is no difference morphologically between these animals whatsoever than the only thing we could 'harvest' from the is that factor of their genetics that differentiates them from the other species. This could for example be variation in their genetics including a (but not limited to) them having a gene with no morphological effect but that makes them immune to cancer. Ok worth saving, you could say so. The gene pool here of different genes in one cryptic species as compared to the next is significantly lower than the gene pool between two obviously different species. Similarly the gene pool between any individuals of the same species are low (lower than that between two cryptic species), however each of these has different genes and variation. If we look in comparison at whether a single gene (e.g. that to cure cancer) is likely to to arise when one species becomes different from another but only so slightly that we cannot morphologically tell them apart, and the chance a single gene (e.g that to cure cancer which may or may not be the same gene but has the same effect) could arise between different individuals of an orgasm than the amount of chance is better for between individuals of an organism. Of course we must compile that if a sexually reproducing organism the cryptic species would have the same chance of its individuals having this gene arise between them, and thus we get to the cryptic species being slightly more likely to have any individual containing this gene that would benefit humans than there is chance between individuals of another organism. (In the above all other factors i.e. mutation rates, population of both species etc, would both have to be assumed as equal which of course is not going to happen). The point of all this is you are arguing that that chance of a species having a gene that could benefit humans is worth saving but any single individual organism with somewhat less chance is not worth saving. Please notice here I am again putting out there general possibilities and likelihoods however in this instance I am not saying based on there being no chance for either I am saying that as you say it nobody can say there is no chance for either a species or an individual and therefore in the case of a cryptic species how can you argue for its preservation over the preservation of either a small population of another species or even a single individual of that other species. 

The crux of your argument here however was in the necessity of biodiversity. Biodiversity is highly necessary I agree with your point this is why I did not debate that point as you have so well pointed out, because I agree with maintaining biodiversity. I would thank you not to accuse me of thinking I have dismantled your whole argument on a single point. Neither that I have dismantled that point even. 


> It does NOT occur through some quantum genetic leap to a clearly and absolutely dissimilar population.


Which was the entire point of me raising cryptic species. Cryptic species not being clearly and absolutely dissimilar populations but identifiable genetic variances that do not naturally appear to be mixing for some reason or another. Whether we define them as species or not genetic variance is necessary and for genetic variance to properly occur we need to be allowing for functioning ecosystems in which these species occur. Not simply defining each one as a separate species and managing for that species to survive within its niche within parts of its range. Which I do agree is at least better than nothing at all. 



> I’m sorry but I think you have completely missed the boat on this one. “_whether we accept it or not we are part of nature and our effects on it are natural_.” You need to get a dictionary and do a bit of reading. You also need to step back and open your eyes a lot wider to the world around you. The natural world is in retreat. The plague called humans is responsible. The notion of “Should we just leave nature to adapt around us?” is childlike in its innocence… I wouldn’t know where to start to get that across, so I am not even going to try.



Hahahaha. Yes the plague that is humans is spreading and like a virus has the potential to overcome its host, devour everything it needs and leave this world for dead. Which is why we need conservation, why we cannot just leave the world to adapt around us. I am simply saying that we must consider our ability to pick and choose 'play god' with different organisms. Not that we should not conserve other organisms only that it is strongly necessary for us to consider our role. So here it seems you missed my point, I am not saying we should do these things I am saying we should consider why we should, how we should and for what reason we should.

In that you say I need to get a dictionary and start reading. "Nature- the universe with all its phenomena""The sum total of forces throughout the universe""a primitive wild, condition; an uncultivated state" 
All of these definitions come from the same dictionary and yet you may notice that the first and second contradict the last. Not to mention that what in fact made a cultivated state? Well humans, but humans were made by nature, are a product of nature, in fact are a part of nature. The thinking we are not is similar to the thinking humans are not animals. That we are above. While I do not disagree that the ability of abstract though sets us obviously set apart it does not mean we are not still a part of nature. It does not mean that anything we make is not a part a nature. Simply it means we are able to view ourselves as part of nature and due to our technology choose how we want to effect and mold nature. Thus the ability to 'play god'. 



> If I were a working scientist I would be truly offended by that last sentence. You seem to have confused a physical analogy with an ideological one.



Perhaps I have but it remains true that what is important in understanding our world and conserving it is not in any one small skink, or any other organism but in viewing ecosystems and their behaviors from a broader view. 



> I gather you don’t keep pets. Or do you get a papal dispensation so long as they are not randomly selected? Come on. I don’t mind you have an ethical objection to anything, so long as that objection is applied consistently. As best I can make out of the confusion of this paragraph, it is not.



Haha no I do not apply it consistently, and yes I do have pets. It is fair enough to argue my point of view hypocritical, and biased. However the ethical dilemma in my perspective only occurs when an organism is killed. You could then argue* '*it would be all right to collect all animals from the environment alive and this would be ok in my perspective*'. *Of course this would not be ok in my perspective which of course provides the giant level of hypocrite present. 
While keeping pets is a giant inconsistency to my ethic I do not see in that paragraph true inconsistency. What I am saying there is that acts of selfishness (with oneself being the human species) that require an animal to be taken and killed (i.e. food) even if there are other possible sources of food than wild animals is in my opinion ok. Taking of animals and requiring them to be killed to understand that animal argued as for the good of that animal I do not view as ok. This is consistent as the contexts of these events are separate. However I do agree many parts of my ethic to be hypocritical. 

In terms of my ethic keep in mind I am 17 and it does and should take a huge amount of time for ethic to truly form as it is a hugely diverse and complex area. If you were to you had ethical views that are constant and which you do not pursue open minded, than that in itself would be as bad as having ethical views which meet your considerations to the best of the ability you can achieve keeping in mind personal bias. 

In terms of your replies keep in mind I am not in fact arguing against any of your views I am simply attempting to highlight grey areas and the ability and validity of different view points to have an effect in these areas. Conservation is key, but for those who apply rigorous ethic that all things natural should be preserved and view ourselves as separate than the only true solution is the removal of humans from nature.


----------



## CamdeJong (May 21, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Perhaps I have but it remains true that what is important in understanding our world and conserving it is not in any one small skink, or any other organism but in viewing ecosystems and their behaviors from a broader view.


 
Which _requires_ an ecological and morphological understanding of the individual species that influence and require said ecosystems. You're talking about two separate fields of science there, fields that complement one another. You can't have ecological science - and therefore conservation, essentially - without zoological science. Gotta know the skink to save the forest =)



GeckPhotographer said:


> What I am saying there is that acts of selfishness (with oneself being the human species) that require an animal to be taken and killed (i.e. food) even if there are other possible sources of food than wild animals is in my opinion ok. Taking of animals and requiring them to be killed to understand that animal argued as for the good of that animal I do not view as ok.



But the use of these animals does aid our understanding of and therefore ability to help them. By killing three or four tuna a group of marine biologists learns their anatomy, diet, reproductive information, and so on. We can kill and eat a billion tuna and not learn that. I've got to ba skeptical of your opinion until you can validate it.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

> Which _requires_ an ecological and morphological understanding of the individual species that influence and require said ecosystems. You're talking about two separate fields of science there, fields that complement one another. You can't have ecological science - and therefore conservation, essentially - without zoological science. Gotta know the skink to save the forest =)



Of course but in talking about cryptic species, we can know the skink without knowing each skink. The point is focusing on the forest instead of each skink. In other cases in which non cryptic species occur I completely agree with you. Even in the case of cryptic species I agree we should be describing them, I simply believe there is a line when we are describing such similar organism that goes to the point of humans describing organisms for organisms sake and not the bigger picture. 


> But the use of these animals does aid our understanding of and therefore ability to help them. By killing three or four tuna a group of marine biologists learns their anatomy, diet, reproductive information, and so on. We can kill and eat a billion tuna and not learn that. I've got to ba skeptical of your opinion until you can validate it.


Be skeptical, I cannot validate it and I do not ask for anyone else to hold this onion, I am simply saying that I do not agree with the collection and killing of animals for science.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 21, 2011)

Where two sympatric populations are morphologically indistinguishable but genetically different, there must be active characteristics at work maintaining the genetic isolation of each group. Those distinguishing characteristics are not visual. If they were visual, would that make a difference? Why?



GeckPhotographer said:


> Secondly as do I but unfortunately informed individuals are probably not going to end up the driving force in conservation. .


 
That which drives conservation is not simple. We could uses page here discussing that alone. Let me briefly outline some of the players in Australia. Each government has a department that is given responsibility for conservation and management of natural resources (nature – or what’s left of it) – usually the department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). This department will be staffed by a mixture of bureaucrats and scientists, some of whom are one in the same. They advise the minister and they also formulate and enforce the regulations. They also do a percentage of the scientific survey work and are specifically involved with priority conservation projects. There are many Environmental Survey companies who are hired by both industry and governments. There are requirements on industrial and other developments to produce Environment Impact Statements assessing the impact of a given project. There are lobby groups such as the one started by AFTCRA to try and prevent the damming of the Mary River. There are influential individuals like Bob Irwin. There are a multitude of studies produced by universities. There are studies produced by interested and competent “amateurs” such as fill the pages of Herpetofauna magazine… 



GeckPhotographer said:


> our effects on it (nature)are natural. .


 I gave you credit here to be able to pinpoint the error in this sentence. My mistake. I should have been more specific. Man’s effects on the natural world are NOT natural, they are artificial i.e. “made or contrived by human skill and labour; not natural” from Webster’s dictionary. The comment was not meant to send you to the dictionary but to get you to reflect on the use of the term natural. Man may be part of nature but that which he does to change the natural order of things is far from natural. My apologies for not making that clear earlier.

Lastly, you have a problem with one specific mode of collection of animals for taxonomic use. This I accept. All I would like to point out is that a truly immense volume of information that has been of immeasurable use and worth has been contributed by this method. The numbers collected have zero effect upon the populations from which they are collected. So while jars full of pickled specimens may not do anything for you, it has done a lot for science generally and biological sciences in particular.

Blue


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

> That which drives conservation is not simple. We could uses page here discussing that alone.


I agree.
My simplification is based off that bureaucrats will listen to scientists but if they are going to be voted out for something than the public opinion will be followed. 


> Man may be part of nature but that which he does to change the natural order of things is far from natural. My apologies for not making that clear earlier.


Yet another topic really discussing the concept behind what makes something natural or artificial and a much harder one to define really. 



> Where two sympatric populations are morphologically indistinguishable but genetically different, there must be active characteristics at work maintaining the genetic isolation of each group. Those distinguishing characteristics are not visual. If they were visual, would that make a difference? Why?


If they are morphologically indistinguishable this rules out all the possible helpful (to humans) traits which are expressed in the animals structure and possibly some areas of physiology that also have a morphological impact. A common separator of cryptic species is behavioral. How exactly the genetic material of an animal effect its behavior is to my knowledge unknown or fuzzy at best. Regardless I can see no benefit for humans from behaviorally coding genes (although in the future who knows, we could genetically implant people with 'calm gene'). That means out of the two real pools that humans could draw from structural coding genetics and physiologically coding genetics, the pool of structurally coding genetics is all the same within the parameters of variance within the species. Therefore there is a smaller pool of genetic variation in which we are talking about possible benefits for humans occurring. Of course structural mutations could occur within any individual of any of the cryptic species and having large populations with good genetic variance between them can only improve the chance of this happening. 

In the case that the active characteristic keeping the group genetically separate is not behavior than the above is only slightly less valid. 

Also more generally morphological shift between one species and another indicates a larger difference in genetic material.


> Lastly, you have a problem with one specific mode of collection of animals for taxonomic use. This I accept. All I would like to point out is that a truly immense volume of information that has been of immeasurable use and worth has been contributed by this method. The numbers collected have zero effect upon the populations from which they are collected. So while jars full of pickled specimens may not do anything for you, it has done a lot for science generally and biological sciences in particular.



I accept that taxonomy is important and thus this method important to the scientific world and has had a beneficial effect on populations from which individuals are taken. I have never blamed anyone for being a taxonomist, I have spent most of my life surrounded by them and know the way they feel about the benefits outweighing an individual and respect the importance of their work.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 21, 2011)

fugawi said:


> An interesting thought on Dingos. When I first had Huskies and saw a dingo close up in person, I couldn't help notice the similarities between Dingos and Huskies from a visual point of view. Aside from colour they were almost indistinguishable from each other. I wonder if a similar thing happened with Dingos as with Huskies, either the Aboriginies bred them with Asian Wolves or they just bred naturally. Interesting thought though.


 
Sounds to me like rather insightful observation at the time. Following is part of a quote I posted on pg 2 (about 1/3 down) from Wikipedia:
“The Australian Dingo’s… original ancestors are thought to have arrived with humans from southeast Asia thousands of years ago, when dogs were still relatively undomesticated and closer to their wild Asian Gray Wolf parent species, _Canis lupus_.



GeckPhotographer said:


> If they are morphologically indistinguishable this rules out all the possible helpful (to humans) traits which are expressed in the animals structure and possibly some areas of physiology that also have a morphological impact. A common separator of cryptic species is behavioral. How exactly the genetic material of an animal effect its behavior is to my knowledge unknown or fuzzy at best. Regardless I can see no benefit for humans from behaviorally coding genes (although in the future who knows, we could genetically implant people with 'calm gene'). That means out of the two real pools that humans could draw from structural coding genetics and physiologically coding genetics, the pool of structurally coding genetics is all the same within the parameters of variance within the species. Therefore there is a smaller pool of genetic variation in which we are talking about possible benefits for humans occurring. Of course structural mutations could occur within any individual of any of the cryptic species and having large populations with good genetic variance between them can only improve the chance of this happening.
> 
> In the case that the active characteristic keeping the group genetically separate is not behavior than the above is only slightly less valid.


 

Did I mention useful genes? No. 

“_If we go to the point of defining these species that are so close morphologically we need genetics to tell them apart, then are we really trying to answer why and how they are different? 
I do not believe we truly are I believe we are in many of these cases defining for the sake of defining and not for the sake of the greater perspective of science_.”

This was part of your original statement. The point I tried to get across to you is that the degree of difference between two species is not dependent on whether it is expressed in external morphology or otherwise. More importantly, why do we have to be able to see the differences to make it a valid and worthwhile exercise to distinguish between species? That they are different species is all that is important. Thank goodness scientists didn’t apply the above criteria when they were investigating things like the composition of the atmosphere, electromagnetic radiation, atomic structure, magnetic force and fields, electricity, gravity, Van der Waals forces, moments, dipoles … need I go on? 

To paraphrase you original statement, you are saying that the differences MUST be visual to make the identification and distinguishing of differing species worthwhile. I find this assertion untenable. 



GeckPhotographer said:


> Also more generally morphological shift between one species and another indicates a larger difference in genetic material.



As for the number of genes involved in differentiating between species – that depends on the individual species, NOT the mode of expression of the genes. For example, if a female of a given species reacts to the breeding colours of a male, it is quite possible that a single gene controlling colour can provide a behavioural barrier leading to two populations that do not interbreed. The differences between different morphologically similar populations can be related to behaviour, yes, but they may also be due to biochemical differences (e.g. pheromones, enzymes involved in fertilisation), internal morphology (which you mentioned at one point), differences in annual rhythms or even possibly circadian rhythms in relation to receptive pairing, vocalisations due to subtle differences in nasal or throat structure….


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 21, 2011)

> Did I mention useful genes? No.
> 
> “_If we go to the point of defining these species that are so close morphologically we need genetics to tell them apart, then are we really trying to answer why and how they are different?
> I do not believe we truly are I believe we are in many of these cases defining for the sake of defining and not for the sake of the greater perspective of science_.”
> ...


I have misinterpreted. I am simply talking about the argument that we might find something useful from the animal because it is a different species. I am not saying we need to be able to see the differences to make it valid for a species. I am saying that defining these species reaches the point where we are defining for the sake of defining. You have said it yourself "That they are different species is all that is important", no it is not. We can define them as different species for our understanding, we can define them as different species to help manage them. But defining them for the sake of defining them is not necessary. No I am saying the differing of species must be worthwhile to make it worthwhile. I am further saying that when we approach cryptic species there comes a point we are defining for the sake of defining and that defining for the sake of defining has no real point to it. And this comes back to my original question of where should we draw the line. 


> To paraphrase you original statement, you are saying that the differences MUST be visual to make the identification and distinguishing of differing species worthwhile. I find this assertion untenable.


No I am saying the differing of species must be worthwhile to make it worthwhile. I am further saying that when we approach cryptic species there comes a point we are defining for the sake of defining and that defining for the sake of defining has no real point to it. 



> Thank goodness scientists didn’t apply the above criteria when they were investigating things like the composition of the atmosphere, electromagnetic radiation, atomic structure, magnetic force and fields, electricity, gravity, Van der Waals forces, moments, dipoles … need I go on?


You are trying to relate the effect of concepts of physics just because like the difference between these animals they cannot be seen. I am sure you can see this is a completely different thing.



> As for the number of genes involved in differentiating between species – that depends on the individual species, NOT the mode of expression of the genes. For example, if a female of a given species reacts to the breeding colours of a male, it is quite possible that a single gene controlling colour can provide a behavioural barrier leading to two populations that do not interbreed. The differences between different morphologically similar populations can be related to behaviour, yes, but they may also be due to biochemical differences (e.g. pheromones, enzymes involved in fertilisation), internal morphology (which you mentioned at one point), differences in annual rhythms or even possibly circadian rhythms in relation to receptive pairing, vocalisations due to subtle differences in nasal or throat structure….


I agree this is different in all cases. But for a species to evolve based on its morphology does indicate greater genetic change than for a species to evolve based on other factors. See the word indicate. I am not saying it always does, I am simply saying that not unoften cryptic species even genetically are more closely related to each other, than are two closest relatives to each other of non cryptic species. Thus if a species is morphologically different this is probably indicative that it is probably less closely related than it would be if it were not.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 22, 2011)

First of all, let’s use the correct terms – a taxonomist describes a new species (rather then ‘defines’). That description can then be used by others to identify that species. Once you can identify a species you can manage it, if and as required. You can also study it and learn about it, if and as required or desired.

You provided your own explanation of taxonomy and what it is used for. You did not explain what you meant by the 'why and how?’ I assume you meant studying the organism. 
You state that describing of species must be worthwhile to make it worthwhile. Care to explain what you mean by ‘worthwhile’ or shall I write it off as a truism? 
Describing for the sake of describing has no real point to it. There is always a point to describing – that is to delineate species of organisms. It doesn’t matter if they are microscopic foraminifera on the sea floor or large varanids in the Philippines. That the description of a species may have virtually no practical use does not invalidate this as legitimate scientific endeavour.



GeckPhotographer said:


> Also more generally morphological shift between one species and another indicates a larger difference in genetic material.


 A minor point. I would qualify the above statment with “nearly always”. Look at dogs for example.


----------



## eipper (May 22, 2011)

An intelligent discussion on aps....that has its own need for conservation....

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## GeckPhotographer (May 30, 2011)

Well let me thank you Blue for your long and well thought out replies. It has taken me some time to decide that with assignments taking up my time I am better off thanking you for that food for thought you have already provided than continue this discussion. So thank you much for that and perhaps some time in the future I will discuss again something similar with you. 

Cheers.


----------

