'The Judean People's Front? I thought we were the People's Front of Judea'
Posted on 08/24/2006 6:54:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Scientists at Texas Tech University argue that defining mammalian species based on genetics will result in the recognition of many more species than previously thought present. This has profound implications for our knowledge of biodiversity and issues based on it, such as conservation, ecology, and understanding evolution. Their study is published in the latest Journal of Mammalogy.
The classical definition of species was proposed by Ernst Mayr in 1942, defining it as reproductively isolated groups of organisms. According to this study, the problem with applying this concept is that it is hard to observe mating and to know whether there is interbreeding between populations and thus creation of hybrid species. Traditionally, species have been recognized based on physical characteristics, although it has been assumed that species differences are inherited and thereby reflect genetic differences.
Study researchers Robert Baker and Robert Bradley define “species” based on genetic data. The new definition distinguishes species that are genetically isolated from one another. Baker and Bradley’s genetic species concept also differs from the phylogenetic species concept proposed by Joel Cracraft in 1989 by emphasizing genetic isolation and protection of the integrity of the gene pool.
New molecular techniques for sequencing genes provide far greater resolution than was previously available. They also allow researchers to quantify problems in understanding the process of speciation. Using genetic data, it is now possible to distinguish species that are morphologically similar — those known as cryptic species. It is also possible to identify species that hybridize but have gene pools that are protected from one another.
The result of using genetic data is that species can be identified that cannot be distinguished using other methods. Baker and Bradley point out that this means there are doubtless many more species than previously thought. They hypothesize that there are 2,000 more mammalian species than are currently recognized.
According to the authors, this means that we will need to rethink the nature of speciation in mammals, barriers that evolve to produce genetic isolation between species, and how diverse mammals are, as well as other species-based issues such as those relating to conservation and zoonoses, communicable diseases from animals to humans.
To read the entire study, click here. SPECIATION IN MAMMALS AND THE GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT (PDF file, 20 pages long)
It was a dark and story might placemarker.
Above the knees? My high school English teacher called it crossing the equator.
One of the main reasons I accept evolution and an old earth.
There is just no way all the extinct species lived at the same time 5000 years ago. It wouldn't work.
Well, Ian Fleming drank pink gin.
How girly is that???
Any chance scientists will retain the old definition while adding the newer distinction? "Genetic species" vs. "observed species", something like that?
'The Judean People's Front? I thought we were the People's Front of Judea'
Good point.
PimentoMan placemark
I'm sure that was my subconscious inspiration.
In the long run, say 50 years, there will be no difference. In the short run, it doesn't matter except to specialists.
Well, I'm no scientist, but I'd say let's start with mammaries.
Check out bacterial Numerical Taxonomy. Does what you say and has been around for 50 years or so, but it has problems of its own.
So does that mean that scientists are going to come up with species and dwarf species? After all, they seem to think it works for planets....
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can population A be genetically isolated from population B, if A is interbreeding with B.
unless Congress acts to set the definition of the term species.
I think they have, but have not yet codified it. As a practical matter, as far as Congress is concerned, a species is any set of similar organic matter that might vote in a block or cause block voting due to it's existence.
I haven't read the article, but it does look like the new definition is still not transitive. (But is need not be and perhaps cannot be, given the way biology works.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.