

  (Source: 20th Century Fox)
But can they sing? And was Dr. Zaius involved?

Troy McClure as Taylor: "I can singggg!"







Family tree




speech bubble




Comments     Threshold


By Keeir on 7/15/2013 7:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Species are defined more by a variation of conformity rather than particular reproducability.

Species that are relatively close together are more likely to be able to have cross species reproducability. (But potentially not)

In this case, fossils suggest Neanderthals differed significant from "Homo Sapiens" type in conformity. Genetic analysis also suggests significant deviations of genes. Certainly Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals were very close, but crossbreeding does't really play a role.

(Remember plants are cross breed all the time)

By charleski on 7/15/2013 10:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
You need only go to a dog show to see how one species can exhibit huge phenotypic variation. Modern interspecific plant hybrids are produced using highly artificial techniques to induce chromosomal rearrangements - that's not really a good counter-example. A better one would be the Canis hybrids, which can occur without genetic intervention and are often fertile - for example a dog can mate with a coyote, and there are accounts of wild populations of dog/wolf/coyote hybrids:

These are edge-cases, though. The definition of a species is still problematic at times, but Mayr's concept of reproductive isolation (which I outlined above) remains the most widely accepted.

By Keeir on 7/17/2013 9:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that many "species" are conclusively tested for true reproductive isolation.

I think its also a stretch to assume that any/all Homo Sapiens/Neatherthal pairings would fit the "natural" category. In the time period of potential "crossings": culture, language, and force multipliers all existed.

I also think its interesting that in one sense you embrace extremely artificaly means to exagerate phenotypic variation. But even with the clear visual difference, the bone structure and sensory organs of dogs are extremely similiar and function in extremely similiar fashions.

By charleski on 7/21/2013 3:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
We don't need to test them. If they were capable of interbreeding and were in proximity to each other, they would, and we'd find that the species had hybridised.

Compared to twiddling genes in a culture dish everything else is 'natural'. Culture and language are pretty poor at restraining the sex drive, even today.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. We have eyes. Fish have eyes. Does that make us the same species?

By charleski on 7/21/2013 3:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and just so it's clear, when I say 'the species would have hybridised' I mean you'd see a mixture that's far more substantial than one gene crossing every 70 generations, which is what the results suggest happened between humans and Neanderthals.

