Species: structure and dynamics

Community and Forum → Taxonomy. Classification → Species: structure and dynamics

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

29.01.2012 12:20, Olearius

But it is necessary to speak as much as possible in one language (or at least in languages that can be mutually translated). Otherwise, if one person understands one thing by "appearance" and the other by another, a lot of constructive things will come out of the dialogue! In addition, in this case, the dispute goes beyond the purely terminological, as you wish. For example, the question of the reality of populations as genetic and ecological systems will be raised.

Basically, all types are normal-cabbage and urticaria, relatively speaking.
This makes biologists speak more of the same language.
And imagine if the genetic material was transmitted from a seagull and cabbage, from a plant and a bee that sat on a flower.
Then there is no constructive dialogue on the "view" part.
There is simply no phenomenon - there is no word "species" (only in science fiction).

"For example, the question of the reality of populations as genetic and ecological systems will be raised."

What is it affected by ?

By the way, "population" is a very flexible term that applies, well, to almost
anything within the species.

29.01.2012 12:33, Seneka

But it is necessary to speak as much as possible in one language (or at least in languages that can be mutually translated). Otherwise, if one person understands one thing by "appearance" and the other by another, a lot of constructive things will come out of the dialogue!

That's right, so the definition of the Type should be as unified as possible, and then there will be no discrepancies. Taxonomists under the guise understand a very specific entity that has diagnostic features, description, type instance, name and authorship. A diagnostic feature can be any feature, including cytogenetic (for example, the morphology of polytene chromosomes or oocyte architecture) and genetic(the presence of a specific marker sequence). Species that could not be distinguished by diagnostic features or for which it is proved that the diagnostic features are highlighted incorrectly(do not work) are reduced to synonyms and considered one Species. The biological properties of a species can be studied and understood in different ways, and it will never be possible to build a consistent definition based on them.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 12: 49

29.01.2012 12:59, PVOzerski

That's right, so the definition of the Type should be as unified as possible, and then there will be no discrepancies. Taxonomists under the guise understand a very specific entity that has diagnostic features, description, type instance, name and authorship. A diagnostic feature can be any feature, including cytogenetic (for example, the morphology of polytene chromosomes or oocyte architecture) and genetic(the presence of a specific marker sequence). Species that could not be distinguished by diagnostic features or for which it is proved that the diagnostic features are highlighted incorrectly(do not work) are reduced to synonyms and considered one Species. The biological properties of a species can be studied and understood in different ways, and it will never be possible to build a consistent definition based on them.

That is, if a species is not described or separated by a taxonomist from another, then it does not seem to exist? So this is the coolest proof of the subjectivity of this concept. More precisely, the fact that you treat the view as a subjective concept. To be honest, with all my recognition of the subjectivity of grouping populations into species, I would not risk going to such an extreme

29.01.2012 13:07, PVOzerski

When viruses are embedded in the genome - well, these are real parasites - it is difficult to talk about the exchange of genetic material between different species, especially about
the common offspring.

Well, parasites... But this circumstance does not negate embedding in the genome. Moreover, if something "breaks" in the viral sequence of nucleotides, then this "embed" will remain with the host, and with a successful combination of circumstances, it can also begin to be inherited by the host. In fact, that's what genetic engineers do.

And then there is the plant parasite bacterium, which builds a plasmid into the host's cells, causing it to develop gall. And it is also known (practically proven) that many genes responsible for ATP synthesis and photosynthesis have "moved" into the nucleus from the genomes of mitochondria and plastids (former prokaryotes-symbionts). And what should a taxonomist who builds cladograms do with all this?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 29.01.2012 13: 08

29.01.2012 13:46, Seneka

That is, if a species is not described or separated by a taxonomist from another, then it does not seem to exist? So this is the coolest proof of the subjectivity of this concept. More precisely, the fact that you treat the view as a subjective concept. To be honest, with all my recognition of the subjectivity of grouping populations into species, I would not risk going to such an extreme

I didn't say it didn't exist. I only meant that it is not known, and the unknown cannot be discussed in detail.

Secondly, in physics there is a proven and proven theory of particle-wave dualism of the electron. For some reason, physicists have found the courage to go to the extreme and recognize the influence of the observer on the manifestation of the properties of the object of observation (study).

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 13: 50

29.01.2012 14:27, amara

Amara, the fact that you have personally read the book does not make you an expert in this field. That's when your personal statements and reasoning reach the level of the book you've read, then send others to read it. Until then, these messages mean that you can't think as logically and coherently as in those books, so you send them away. They say, " You understand everything yourself, but you can't say it, and I don't understand anything, so I have to read it, then I will understand...". Books should be read thoughtfully and always retain the ability to critically evaluate the text, and not religiously, as a dogma and without comprehension.

Not true.

There is always a level of knowledge, a minimum, from which you can start to argue in a particular field. Otherwise it will be no longer want to say what.

I didn't seem to be able to lay out on my fingers what you need to know to understand the biological species.

But without knowledge in ANY field, reasoning doesn't mean much.
We need to learn. Is that so bad?

There's a lot I don't know.

But I don't come to forums on theoretical physics and don't try to explain my understanding of field theory to them, saying that I won't read books on quantum mechanics. They say explain on your fingers. There will be silence in response. And this is understandable. You always have to put in YOUR best effort first.

29.01.2012 15:35, Seneka

So you see and feel the reality of populations, and that's great.

But the unwillingness (in my opinion) to accept the reality of a species, size, but no less real and necessary for the evolutionary process, is upsetting.

Is it that the snake as a species does not really exist? Or an oak tree?

And this is not a matter of reluctance, but of methodology and our capabilities. You don'T put Mayr's concept of a biological species into practice yourself... Or do you use it? Tell us exactly how you do it.

Non-acceptance of a particular teaching is a matter of faith and religion, and the consistent application of the teaching in practice is already a science. The opposite is also possible. A person accepted the teaching on faith, religiously believed in it, calls everyone ignorant on forums, but in practice does not adhere to its principles... A third option is also possible, when the teaching goes without saying, since it is the basis of modern university education in biology, but in the scientific method used in practice, it is not applied as consistently as in theory, since this is physically impossible.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 16: 04

29.01.2012 16:22, amara

Amara, so you didn't answer my question about "Ivanovs, Petros, philatelists and entomologists". Now you are arguing about the existence of an Oak Tree, while simultaneously denying the existence of the Genus Quercus as a set. Also, do you recognize the existence of monotypic families in nature as sets?

There is a species, a biological species, with its definition.

Then there are categories of kinship from larger to smaller: subgenus, genus, supergenus, subtribe, tribe, supertribe, subfamily, family, superfamily.

And no one will ever tell you where one ends and the other begins. The degree of kinship exists, but it has no limits. The view has.

Taxonomists have monotypic families on paper, because it is so convenient to show that this species is far from others. But the word family in one specialist is easily replaced by the word subfamily in another. And there is no crime in this.
The never view. It is always the same, and it cannot be said that it is a subspecies, or a genus. This is the view.

29.01.2012 17:45, Seneka

There is a species, a biological species, with its definition.

Then there are categories of kinship from larger to smaller: subgenus, genus, supergenus, subtribe, tribe, supertribe, subfamily, family, superfamily.

And no one will ever tell you where one ends and the other begins. The degree of kinship exists, but it has no limits. The view has.

Taxonomists have monotypic families on paper, because it is so convenient to show that this species is far from others. But the word family in one specialist is easily replaced by the word subfamily in another. And there is no crime in this.
The never view. It is always the same, and it cannot be said that it is a subspecies, or a genus. This is the view.

A bad case...
I apologize, is this your explanation of how you apply theory in
practice, or is this an answer to one of my questions? I can't figure out which one. Unless about the Monotypic family, so you did not answer completely, there are Biologists and entomologists in the world, or are they fictional characters on paper?

Just not Monotypic, but monotypic and you don't understand their essence.
And a nominative Genus or a nominative taxon of a higher rank, what can you explain? Do they also exist only on paper?

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 18: 23

29.01.2012 18:36, amara

A bad case...
I apologize, is this your explanation of how you apply theory in
practice, or is this an answer to one of my questions? I can't figure out which one. Unless about the Monotypic family, so you did not answer completely, there are Biologists and entomologists in the world, or are they fictional characters on paper?

Just not Monotypic, but monotypic and you don't understand their essence.
And a nominative Genus or a nominative taxon of a higher rank, what can you explain? Do they also exist only on paper?

If I don't understand your questions, I won't answer them.

I have a feeling that you are more interested in taxonomic terms than the biological concept of how animals exist in nature. A taxonomy is like an office that facilitates the accumulation of data for subsequent processing. There are a lot of terms created purely for convenience. But they should not replace the biological essence of the subject. Don't get carried away with terminology.