Re: Taxonomy and speciation

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 02:05:56 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: circular logic"

    Received: by id CAA20218 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 02:10:54 GMT
    Subject: Re: Taxonomy and speciation
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:05:56 -0500
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Philip A.E. Jonkers -

    >It is based on human
    >intention not some intrinsic process in nature.

    Just read an article about some varieties (now there's a word I think at
    least the two of us can settle upon and use in the same way) of ants that
    are slavers- and that an extremely similar variety (so much so that they
    are called, oh, how mistakenly!, the same species) have developed
    different behaviors depending upon the variety of their prey, some of
    which don't put up much of a fight, and others of which put up a raucous
    fight indeed.

    It would seem that the variety of behaviors (now that would really be a
    problem if we called that a fundamental difference, why, we might think
    frenchmen to be a different species altogether) is pretty strictly a
    function of social environments.

    Not that that makes speciation any easier, but, when you have sixteen
    hundred thousand things, it makes sense to sort them by some method. But
    behavior ain't the right way. A new taxonomy based on genetics would be a
    good thing.

    But, like in human evolution, the messy and useless is often kept.

    - Wade

    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 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 02:16:57 GMT