From: Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 27 Apr 2005 - 13:01:54 GMT
Okay now I look multiply daft :)
> Tsk, a biologist should be able to identify an ape :-)
Uh-huh. Monkey sounded funnier though? (how weak is that defence...)
> I am familiar with Otte and Endler, and most of the later stuff (not
> speciation, although I'm remedying that now - I tend to be a pluralist,
> allowing for sympatric as well as allopatric speciation). I also know
> White's karyotypic (stasipatric) account.
Stasipatric -- that was it... And certainly sympatric works just fine;
but it is at the end of the day just one form of a general mode of which
allopatric is another. Whether the division is due to a mountain range
or results from host fidelity affecting mating, or allochrony or
variation in call or whatever, the restricted gene flow is a must. None
of our modelling could produce speciation with high gene flow, and
certainly not with panmixis; all we could get was a population that bled
F2 breakdown hybrids (which is just incipient speciation essentially);
sadly I had little time to follow through on the development of
assortative mating in response to an environment that pulls a population
in two directions at once, but it works as we and others found (and as
is fairly plain to see in reality anyway).
> I have a history - a memetic study you might say - of species concepts
> from Aristotle, through the late classical, medieval, renaissance, and
> later periods as well as the beginnings of natural history from
> Cesalpino on. It's being revised for publication now. I hope to have it
> ready by October or so.
I'd love to read that -- will you post a notice to the group?
> I am not familiar with an "inclusive species concept" unless you mean
> Templeton's *cohesion* concept.
Prolly was that; I most likely promoted a word from the definition to
the title in my rather patchy recollection (a quick googling seems to
support that conclusion).
A decade would seem sufficient to render most of the content of my head
worthless. Ah well, thank god I'm just a general BSer these days...
> On 27/04/2005, at 7:55 PM, Chris Taylor wrote:
>> Hiya. The marvellous not-so-little book in which that concept, plus
>> the classical biological concept and a couple of others are descibed
>> (in a piece by Alan Templeton) is:
>> Otte, D. and J.A. Endler (editors). 1989. Speciation and its
>> Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. 670pp
>> Well worth a browse -- as I recall more or less all the pieces were
>> interesting, including some good stuff on Aussie crickets (but
>> intriguingly, not Aussie cricketers) that extended the notion of
>> parapatric speciation. I'm struggling now though -- its a long time
>> since I had a copy to hand.
>> Fyi my interest started with an undergraduate dissertation on
>> speciation and ended up being a Ph.D. I can forward either if you like
>> (for the various references rather than the, er, quality of the
>> writing, especially in the undergrad dissertation...). But I was more
>> focused on speciation mechanisms than species concepts (although
>> obviously one has to pick a concept to study the mechanisms). Btw nice
>> monkey ;)
>> Cheers, Chris.
>> Chris Taylor wrote:
>>>> There is also a community of people that are trying to keep Latin up
>>>> to date! This is a weird thing that may have no direct analogue in
>>>> animal biology as funny animal hybrids can't walk / eat / think as a
>>>> rule; but perhaps plants can throw us a bone here so to speak? The
>>>> notion of a defined species in plants is much less useful as there
>>>> tend to be gradations between apparent 'species' that bridge gaps
>>>> either through interleaving (ho ho ho) of bits of genomes keeping n
>>>> = 2 or whatever, or just adding genomes (hexaploid bread wheat,
>>>> maize etc.); hence the biological species definition is less useful
>>>> and we have to look at the inclusive species concept or something
>>>> like that. And importantly the hybrids can represent a species in
>>>> themselves. Something you kind of see in animal ring species but
>>>> only in a limited way, and certainly you don't see summation of
>>>> genomes in animals if there is even a sniff of recombination
>>>> (phasmids do it, but not much else? Scott help me out here as you
>>>> may be the most widely-read guy in the world...).
>>> Can you give me some reference to this "inclusive species concept"?
>>> Species concepts is my thesis topic, presently being revised for
>>> publication, and I have never come across it. Your help would be
>> Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
>> HUPO PSI: GPS -- psidev.sf.net
>> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
>> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Taylor (email@example.com) HUPO PSI: GPS -- psidev.sf.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 27 Apr 2005 - 13:19:05 GMT