Species Concept Question

[Richard Pyle]

> >Yes, but male humans and female humans are indisputably different
> >morphologically; as are the major human races; as are breeds of
> dogs; etc.
> >Maybe these are exceptional cases, and don't represent the
> "natural" world.
>
> I'll bet there are numerous cases in the fish world wher the male and
> female were so different morphologically  that they were
> originally thought
> to be and decribed as separate species...

Indeed, there are many!

> I think the bright green vs. red/blue ecclectus parrot is a case from the
> bird world...

...in the firsh world, it would be the bright green vs. red/blue parrotFISH
that exemplify this sort of thing.

> A web enumeration of all such instances would be interesting for
> those with
> a penchant for biotrivia...

I've got other...err...fish to fry, for the moment.

> It has been argued several times that from a conservation point of view
> that this is the only responsible approach... divide describe everything
> and then legislate to protect all the micropopulations...  maybe you could
> defend this approach ideologically, but I am not so sure scientifically...

Taken to the extreme, with each new birth of an organism (with its
first-ever unique sequence of DNA) a new name would required.  I can hear
Carl Sagan now: "Billions and billions...."

> Aw c'mon...  you can't fool us that easily...  they are not only the same
> species, but the same *specimen*...  each with a different
> photoshop makover...

Damn!  Ya caught me!

> Unrelated to anything at all, I would like to say what a
> fantastic use this
> is of technology to facilitate biolocial/taxonomic discussion - far better
> than an a ABC and a bunch of Xs and Os.  it is so easy to load all the
> images in the browser and flick backwards and forwards between
> them...   good use of a good tool...

Thanks!!!  I aims to please...

:-)

Aloha,
Rich