Species: structure and dynamics

By the way, in the populations of gulls (ring wedges) there are gulls that do not cross with each other, behave, in my understanding, as different species. They live on the same territory.
Amara, do you consider them to be the same species?

I need to know more about this case to answer it. But. again, such cases are not numerous, and do not get hung up on them. For the time being.

The process is not only not continuous, but not unambiguous.

Subspecies may or may not change their species (if conditions permit, such as isolation).

Now, the most interesting thing is, how do you understand this ?

And the essence of this fable is that you need to either recognize all taxonomic categories as objective reality, or recognize that all taxa are just an abstraction, subjective categories that are currently accepted among a group of people To recognize something more "real" and something less-in this case, a little strange

This post was edited by Hierophis - 29.01.2012 19: 12

I need to know more about this case to answer it. But. again, such cases are not numerous, and do not get hung up on them. For the time being.

OK, if you need to know more ... Green, Stout, and Taylor. Biology in three volumes.
It was there as far as I can remember.

And the essence of this fable is that you need to either recognize all taxa as objective reality, or recognize that all taxa are just an abstraction, subjective categories that are currently accepted among a group of people To recognize something more "real" and something less-in this case, a little strange

Right. The selection of subspecies and species is of course subjective, because
one is not far from the other, roughly speaking.

Forgive my meticulousness and boredom, but how do you understand
the "taxon" in your line ?

Olearius, good question I meant a taxonomic category!

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.

In vain, I can explain or reformulate it to make it clear. It's worse when direct questions go unanswered.
Each term is coined for a reason, but has a functional load and meaning.
I don't mind the office. Strict clerical order is better than random chatter about nothing.

OK, if you need to know more ... Green, Stout, and Taylor. Biology in three volumes.
It was there as far as I can remember.

I don't remember in detail right now, but I think the bottom line is that individuals from the extreme (most remote) populations no longer interbreed, but from neighboring populations do.
Even so, through transitions, the species maintains its GENETIC unity. And therefore it is a single view.

Do not rush to dismember it. For what?

The species as it exists in nature is more interesting and most importantly more important than its momentary taxonomic interpretation. Believe me.

And yet, do not "catch" me on exceptions or difficult or incomprehensible cases.

This is not the case, and does not lead to an understanding of the process. And I don't like arguments, there's nothing but stubbornness in them.

If I can help you understand some of what I know about the species, I'd be happy to. If I feel that this is more to put me in a dead end, then it will be a waste of time.

I don't remember in detail right now, but I think the bottom line is that individuals from the extreme (most remote) populations no longer interbreed, but from neighboring populations do.
Even so, through transitions, the species maintains its GENETIC unity. And therefore it is a single view.

Do not rush to dismember it. For what?

The species as it exists in nature is more interesting and most importantly more important than its momentary taxonomic interpretation. Believe me.

And yet, do not "catch" me on exceptions or difficult or incomprehensible cases.

This is not the case, and does not lead to an understanding of the process. And I don't like arguments, there's nothing but stubbornness in them.

If I can help you understand some of what I know about the species, I'd be happy to. If I feel that this is more to put me in a dead end, then it will be a waste of time.

I really don't try to dissect or connect species ...
In your understanding, this is one view, and then your understanding of the term view
becomes more clear to me.
In my understanding of the species, there is still more than one species in the ring wedges of gulls.
But this, I think, is not the subject of our dispute, but a question of terminology.

And sometimes it is interesting to argue, especially on such an interesting
topic.
"Truth is born in argument," isn't it ?

Forgive my meticulousness and boredom, but how do you understand "taxon"?

He won't answer you. I will add that I have already tried to explain above that any taxon of any rank is not a generalized abstraction(in the sense of the General/Particular relation, this Aristotelian understanding is gradually being abandoned), but in fact, it is a" Subset "defined on a" Set " of Species (in the sense of the Whole/Part relation), as it has a certain set of properties and attributes. Species, in turn, are defined through type instances, but they mean a set of individuals in nature that meet the definition of the species and this type instance. Some people add to this the biological concept of the Species according to Mayr - genetic integrity, interaction between populations, isolation of species, etc., although in practice none of them checks or uses this, never. Although, this is me too categorical... Sometimes, some people write articles on this topic and it is considered that they do it.

So, based on the understanding of a "Taxon" as a set, any taxon actually exists in nature in the form of a set of instances. Even the disbanding of taxa does not lead to the disappearance of the wrong taxon from nature, its elements remain, but now this set intersects several new taxa.

For example, "philatelists" or "entomologists" are polyphyletic taxa that intersect several monophyletic ones, and "Ivanovs" and "Petrovs" are monophyletic taxa. All these taxa exist in nature as a set of specific individuals, despite the fact that polyphyletic taxa do not reflect the origin of individuals and are considered incorrect.

You wouldn't really say that entomologists or philatelists don't exist. There are such people and I know them personally.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 20: 52

Taxon is not a systematic category, and it has nothing to do with the topic at all

Olearius, good question I meant a taxonomic category!

It's clear.

By the way, there is a well-known saying (I don't remember who, but it seems like a philosopher of our time)
"View-there is a fact"

So it turns out that we should consider "kind" as a multi-valued word.

1. species-taxonomic category (subjective approach) - Hierophis

2. species - multiple biological organisms-Seneka

?

"By the way, there is a famous saying (I don't remember who, but it seems like a philosopher of our time)
"View - there is a fact""

What's his real name, Boris?"

He won't answer you. I will add that I have already tried to explain above that any taxon of any rank is not a generalized abstraction(in the sense of the General/Particular relation, this Aristotelian understanding is gradually being abandoned), but in fact, it is a" Subset "defined on a" Set " of Species (in the sense of the Whole/Part relation), as it has a certain set of properties and attributes. Species, in turn, are defined through type instances, but they mean a set of individuals in nature that meet the definition of the species and this type instance. Some people add to this the biological concept of the Species according to Mayr - genetic integrity, interaction between populations, isolation of species, etc., although in practice none of them checks or uses this, never.

So, based on the understanding of a "Taxon" as a set, any taxon actually exists in nature in the form of a set of instances. Even the disbanding of taxa does not lead to the disappearance of the wrong taxon from nature, its elements remain, but now this set intersects several new taxa.

For example, "philatelists" or "entomologists" are polyphyletic taxa that intersect several monophyletic ones, and "Ivanovs" and "Petrovs" are monophyletic taxa. All these taxa exist in nature as a set of specific individuals, despite the fact that polyphyletic taxa do not reflect the origin of individuals and are considered incorrect.

You wouldn't really say that entomologists or philatelists don't exist. There are such people and I know them personally.

Based on the code of Zoological Nomenclature, the concept of a taxon is defined exactly as you say. It is not subjective that it is, for example, a conditional name, but objectively, through a group of populations.

amara, are you sure you don't confuse the word "species" and "individual"? Because your message becomes b. m. logical only if the word species is replaced with the word individual. Think about it

People will disappear-species and even populations will disappear, but individuals will remain and continue to live according to their own laws that do not depend on anyone

That is the point of our disagreement.

This is not a question of terminology, by any means.

A species in nature exists not depending on how it is viewed by one or another group of people.

I'm not interested in the terminology in this case at all. Here I am more of a biologist, and I am interested in what is really there, and it can be studied, understood and concluded whether it is one species or not. Whether the gene pool is overflowing or not. This will resolve the issue completely. Point.
Linguistic subtleties of terms are also not alien to me, but in this particular case they are not necessary. Two points of view on this example will not get along, one of them should move away after changing the subject. This is not the subject of which picture is more interesting, where you can argue. And the view, whether it exists or not, is not a point of view.
I'm talking about the biological form of course. And there is no other.

This logic is completely alien to me.
You know, you can also fiercely prove the existence of God:
"God exists, because it cannot be otherwise" - by the way, one of the proofs
of God by ancient philosophers.

And so...

What is the point of us arguing about whether the species are different or the same in ring
wedges ?

This is considered the subject of agreement of scientists.

If you think this is one view, OK, but this is "your view"

And "my" there is more than one

Well, yes, to each-according to his faith, who believes in the existence of God, and who in the existence of the species
And who believes that history is a science

Based on the code of Zoological Nomenclature, the concept of a taxon is defined exactly as you say. It is not subjective that it is, for example, a conditional name, but objectively, through a group of populations.

Can you name the article? There is a contradiction here... If the ICZN defines a taxon through a group of populations, then it is not the same there. I previously defined a population through a Species, not the other way around.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 20: 56

Can you name the article? There is a contradiction here... If the ICZN defines a taxon through a group of populations, then it is not the same there. I previously defined a population through a Species, not the other way around.

I just looked it up.
Not in the article, but in the code's dictionary of terms:

"Population or group of populations of organisms..... "

Interseno, what does taxon have to do with the reservoir? In general, I mistakenly wrote this word, it seems to be just a collection of organisms that have a certain degree of kinship, thanks to which this set can be designated through some name(species, genus, family, etc.). In principle, this is very indirectly related to taxonomy and the concept of species

Interseno, what does taxon have to do with the reservoir? In general, I mistakenly wrote this word, it seems to be just a collection of organisms that have a certain degree of kinship, thanks to which this set can be designated through some name(species, genus, family, etc.). In principle, this has a very indirect relation to taxonomy and to the concept of species

No. The taxon is distinguished not by the degree of kinship, but by apomorphic features(this is a difference, not a relationship). Among the existing taxa, I do not know of any taxa(including groups of genera and species(including subspecies)) that would be officially distinguished by the degree of kinship. I'm not an expert in this area, so I'd appreciate some examples. There are such jobs, and their number is multiplying. However, there is an opinion of reputable taxonomists that these works do not make sense.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 22: 15

I just looked it up.
Not in the article, but in the code's dictionary of terms:

"A population or group of populations of organisms....."

Yes, indeed, in the translated version, this blunder is on page 166. The only reassuring thing is that the ICZN is a nomenclature, not a science. How can a taxon, such as a Family rank, be called a population or a group of populations? This is usually used to describe a Species, not any taxon. It is quite consistent to call a taxon a group of individuals, since these individuals may belong to different species within a supraspecific taxon.

This post was edited by Seneka - 29.01.2012 23: 01