[sittnick]

None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago. We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring. (If an archeologist in the year 20000 AD came upon a poodle and rottweiler skeleton, not knowing of the existence of either because they died out, he would likely conclude they were different species) Heck, we STILL don't know all the species that are in the world right now. A good scientist doesn't just throw out raw assertions as facts. There is so much we don't know, and a large number of things we THOUGHT we know that have since been disproven or brought into question. ---- No it isn't. My point is that nutritional content, cooking properties and everything else you bring in is irrelevent to this discussion.

It is absolutely relevant. Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways. Just because a botanist happens to classify them based on how they grow does not mean that peanuts come from some other legume. It is just a handy way to categorize, nothing more. I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.

[Alter Kaker]

None of us know all of the creatures that were around three or four or thirty thousand years ago.

Of course we do. We have intact humans from longer ago than that. 3000 years ago was well within the realm of recorded history, in many places.

We certainly don't know what similar looking specimens could mate with others and produce fertile offspring.

No, and without DNA from early Equines, we will likely never know. But we can make a very educated guess, judging from the fact that extant equines (like horses, zebras and asses) cannot normally produce fertile offspring.

Peanuts are different from legumes in all sorts of ways.

Name one.

I am glad to see that you no longer pretend that the grocer is "wrong" to put the peanuts in with the other nuts in the supermarket.

Should grocers pack Swedish Fish in the seafood section too?

[Virginia-American]

... (If an archeologist in the year 20000 AD came upon a poodle and rottweiler skeleton, not knowing of the existence of either because they died out, he would likely conclude they were different species) ...

I would argue that domestic dogs are in fact a ring species. Consider a thought experiment or two:

Procure an island with lots of game, water, shelter, etc, but no dogs. Introduce 100 male teacup poodles and 100 female great Danes. Come back in 20 years. I predict that there will be no dogs, that the difference in size prevents mating.

Same setup, only this time the the poodles are the bitches and the Danes are the males. I predict the same result.

Same setup, only this time 100 male poodles, 100 female poodles, and the same number of Danes. I redict that when you return to the island there will be two true-breeding populations, and no mutts.

If my predictions are correct, then you have to conclude that the poodles and Danes are different species.

The fact that the poodles can mate with Jack Russells, the Jacks with terriers, the terriers with beagles ... with Danes, shows that they would be a ring species.