Definition of "Species"

[SteveNT]

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]

Geck,

Are you Michael's son?

Cheers,
Scott

 

[GeckPhotographer]

Michael Mahony, yes I am his son.

 

[Bluetongue1]

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]

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]

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

 

[saximus]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 =)

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]

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]

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?

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…

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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. .

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]

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.

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]

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

Cheers,
Scott

 

[GeckPhotographer]

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.