The 'evolution' of language

While we are on the subject, the use of square brackets is usually limited to enclosing words added by someone other than the original writer, usually an editor. Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments by the original writer, or to set off information not essential to the rest of the sentence. Using square brackets in place of round results in turgid obsfuceration again.

Biology is messy. Darwin's insight into Nnatural selection as the driving force behind evolution was tremendous. Standing at the beginning of our understanding of evolution he had little opportunity to see where it would go.

There are plenty of examples of two supposedly 'clearly defined species' with a common ancestor that reach a point where they no-longer interbreed. Circumstances can allow them to produce a fertile hybrid that is, ecologically, fitter than either parent or suited to a different habitat. An example is Spartina townsedii. The 'tree of life' has not branched, its branches have fused together.

There is not so much a redefinition of 'species' but the gradual realisation that its utility is largely of classification. The 'exceptions' break only human rules not nature's and generally tell us the most about ecology, population biology and genetics.

I have found some background reading for you, Michael:

eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527332073.html

I may put it on my own Christmas list!

Neil

I would understand sub species to describe a distinctly separate population of a species that has some divergence from the main group but exhibits little in the way of gene transfer with the main group. In other words it describes a population that is on it's way to becoming a new species.

regards Martin

Here's a shorter reference for you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Neil

I'm still not happy about them dumping Phlogiston. You can't trust scientists - they keep changing their minds. They'll be saying we go round the sun next or some such nonsense. Facts? No such thing. Make them dig cabbages I say while right thinking folk like me get on with running the country.

...but it's easy to get lost in theory and forget that behind it all there are individuals choosing, and being chosen as, mates.

...and as we all know, the mate selection problem is a complex one - often driven by mutual attraction, opportunity or otherwise, based upon innate characteristics which loosely approximate to "environmental fitness". In some cases it's also "the best available at the time"

It can even be arranged by human intervention as in the case of domesticated animals which formed part of Darwin's seminal work (esp pigeons).

I'd argue that the offspring, if viable, are really all individuals. Some may be better adapted than their parents to their environment or less so ... but any classification, even if it's based around the potential for inter-breading, is still somewhat arbitrary and a convenience for us.

Jon

Edited By Jon Gibbs on 24/11/2017 14:31:17

Exactly!

Except in the case of a new species arising by hybridisation (which sholdn't happen if species can't interbreed...) where do you draw the line between the new species and the old one if in reality it's two populations drifting incrementally apart? When does individual variation become a new variety, a variety become a new sub-species and when does the sub-species become a species?

.

Whilst we are on the subject ...

In my line of work; square brackets are used inter alia to enclose explanatory text, and to indicate where optional text needs to be inserted.

On a purely practical level, though ... On this forum they mitigate the risk of introducing "accidental smileys".

Suggestion: You write you posts your way, and let me write mine my way.

MichaelG.

.

P.S.

"Round brackets should be used to set off parenthetical comments" might well be nominated for tautology of the week.

.

Thank you, Neil

MichaelG.

I think it is worth bearing in mind that there is no fundamental truth in any of this classification. Mankind has developed models of the world that helps it to understand what is going on around it. These models need constant refining, as has been mentioned when the duality of light as both waves and particles became necessary for the various models to co-exist. Similarly, the definition of a species being defined by the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring seems no longer adequate to explain the knowledge gained by DNA analysis so the definition needs to change - such is progress.

All this keeps the taxonomists employed and Richard Forte has written a lovely book about why taxonomists are important: Dry Store Room No.1 (and it's currently available for 99p on Kindle)

Rod

Would I be accused of being pedantic (over precise?) by saying that unless S O D is a Sapper, or an Explosives Engineer, he would be unlikely to be hoist by his own petard? Or maybe language IS evolving.

Howard

...but I'd argue that in all cases a hybrid is nothing more than a recombination of a previously split line.

Just because offspring are viable though isn't the be-all. Sometimes one of the sexes ends up infertile which isn't particularly smart from an evolutionary p.o.v. - see Haldane's rule **LINK**.

Jon

.

Not at all, Howard

The Bard would probably also jest that he might be a B.O.F.

MichaelG.

And he wouldn't have been the last to make that particular suggestion!

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 24/11/2017 17:48:07

Hello all.

I have only just picked up on this thread, regarding species.

One of my other interests is growing Azaleas and Rhododendrons purely because of the beauty and diversity of the Genus. I have over 60 species and hybrids growing in the garden from rockery size plants to huge trees.

I have not studied the technicalities, but my understanding is that there are some nine hundred species rhododendron and something in excess of 20,000 hybrids developed and if I remember correctly, most but not all species can be hybridised. In fact they are a pretty promiscuous lot (Once upon a time Azalea and Rhododendron were considered separate Genus. Now they are both classed as Rhododendron.) .

Regards Anna

Botanists were definitely ahead of the curve in appreciating how fluid the 'species' concept is, yet I found a quote earlier suggesting that animals hybridise more than plants!

Neil

.

Maybe it's because they are more mobile

MichaelG.

Not sure what line of work you're in but the rest of us are not, so best to use the normal conventions so your audience can understand what the heck you are on about. To avoid smileys, simply add a space.

And perhaps we should just let the scientists write their posts their way, and we ours? I think if we are going to criticize someone else's use of language, we should get our own right while doing so.

No tautology in setting off a parenthetical comment. Quite justified for clarity in the context.

And "inter alia"? Do you mean amongst other things? Or are you just engaging in turgid obsfuceration again?

Edited By Hopper on 25/11/2017 00:58:26

Suggestion: You write you posts your way, and let me write mine my way.

.

No further comment

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 25/11/2017 07:26:59

For anyone actually interested in the recently reported work:

The paper referenced in my opening post is available as a free download from the AAAS

[ American Association for the Advancement of Science ]

Free registration is required ... Just follow the link in the BBC article.

MichaelG.