[Taxacom] yet another species concept?

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Sergio,
       Pretending to use species concepts??  That seems a bit
judgmental.  Whether a given "species concept" defines "real species"
and/or just an explanatory hypothesis that approximates something that
may be real or not, I believe that it ultimately depends on how fuzzy
the given species is, which often tends to vary greatly from one phylum
to another.  
       Is there any reason to assume that a "unified species concept" is
superior to multiple species concepts (largely varying from group to
group)?  What works for bacteria is largely irrelevant for Metazoa or
Metaphyta.  Not surprisingly, the author of the "unified species
concept" is also a proponent of Phylocode.  In both cases, the results
(both nomenclaturally and more broadly systematically) seem to me to be
simplistic generalizations that do more harm than good in the long run.
I say, "Viva la difference"!!!   Reductionism and generalizations often
run into problems when applied beyond the limits within which they have
been shown to definitely apply.  In other words, extrapolation has its
limits, and is dangerous when overly stretched.  Perhaps that is why the
arguments about the "reality" of species tends to be so controversial.
Sometimes it depends on what organisms one is studying.  Of course, it
is further complicated by the paraphyly issue, the  philosophical divide
between those who  disagree about whether the paraphyly of species (and
higher taxa) is useful and/or natural.  The paraphyly issue is the
broadest and most divisive issue that results in a lot of other lesser
controversies (one of which is species concepts, and whether a "unified
species concept" is just a pipe dream with no logical basis).
        -------Cheers,
                     Ken Kinman

****************************************************
Sergio wrote:
     wow!    are we still using (or pretending to use) these "species
concepts"? 
I though after Fitzhugh's "species are explanatory hipotheses" we were
over that... seems we're not.