Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA03373 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:41:07 GMT Message-ID: <000f01c172cc$d7f77c20$01a6bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D13B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Taxonomy and speciation Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:40:25 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip A.E. Jonkers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: Taxonomy and speciation
> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. Let me rephrase what
> I'm trying to state with my hypothesis.
> Naming related groups with a species name has obvious word-economic
> However, since organisms evolve, new types derive from existing parent
> forms. When do we say a new species has emerged? When it differs
> from its parents form? How do we decide the proper moment of speciation?
<< According to Dawkins, in his book River out of Eden (1995) a new
species ( speciation) emerges, when ( seen from the point of view of the
genes) there is no way turning back.
' Drifting apart ', as he called it, means not being seperate in space but
compatibility. The kid will be sufficient different from its parents when,
a way of speaking of course, it can 't no longer interbreed with its parents
to produce fertile offspring.
The proper moment of speciation ' is an event no more momentous than
any other speciation ' Dawkins says.
Any point would have gone unremarked, the slighest difference could
mean a whole new species. We are not to know !
> I believe the root of all confusion is due to our taxonous tradition
> to the realm of biology originally in a religious setting. If, like
> like us to believe, organisms remain fixed it is obviously very useful to
> label a related group of organisms. Naming things is a mental thing.
<< Why are you so keen on that religious stuff !?
I understand your point, but you can get the same discussion beginning from
the point of view that our ancestors did not have the slightest idea what
an individual could be. That is too a religious entrapment.
In the world of SÚrvantes ( Don Quichotte) even thinking about individuality
was out of reach, due to religious influence.
What I am trying to say is, that this whole ' problem ' is not that quite
rent from the problem between collectiviness and individuality.
The ' dog ' -thing is the collectiviness and the ' pitbull ' the
The pitbull- thing generalized into dog as labeling dynamically evolving
species generalized in our taxonomy for labeling fixed entities.
The same principle is at work here.
Maybe we look at it from a wrong perspective !?
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 20:46:57 GMT