Species Concept Question

[Robin Leech]

In the world of spiders, the males are often very different in appearance
and in size from the female.  Perhaps the spiny araneids and the large
golden orb web spiders (genus Nephila), and many of the dwarf spiders, are
best examples.
In the spider world, and there are many more species of spiders (described
about 39,000, possible 170,000 species) than there are mammals, the males
are larger; in the mammal world, the males are usually larger, have larger
tusks, etc.
This is simply sexual dimorphism, and it is probably more common in sexual
animals than it is in asexual ones.
Robin Leech

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: Species Concept Question


> > >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
>