Definitions should ideally be based on how they are intended to be used. That's partly why bacteria are defined based on base-pair differences, birds are defined mostly by appearance, and humans are not split into subspecies.
I agree with your overall article. The definition of 'species' is broken and ridiculous. But I think trying to find the final form of the Definition of Species is a lost cause and missing the forest for the trees. Instead, I think it's better to move towards allocating conservation effort based on the phylogenetic tree and evolutionary distinctiveness. (Really this is a proxy for preserving traits of living things: everything that might potentially be important or... (read more)
Hi David!
Definitions should ideally be based on how they are intended to be used. That's partly why bacteria are defined based on base-pair differences, birds are defined mostly by appearance, and humans are not split into subspecies.
I agree with your overall article. The definition of 'species' is broken and ridiculous. But I think trying to find the final form of the Definition of Species is a lost cause and missing the forest for the trees. Instead, I think it's better to move towards allocating conservation effort based on the phylogenetic tree and evolutionary distinctiveness. (Really this is a proxy for preserving traits of living things: everything that might potentially be important or... (read more)