mobile - desktop |
Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
|
[ Login ] [ User Prefs ]
[ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Taxonomy Discussion ] [ Reply To This Message ] [ Register to Post ] |
Posted by: aquick at Thu Mar 30 22:06:34 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by aquick ] No, it's not. Because of all the differences in opinion, many animals that one taxonomist believe should be given full species designation do not get that designation because other taxonomists disagree. As far as "morphs" go, the only ones the biologist would be interested in would be those naturally occurring variants (ex--F. pardalis, the panther chameleon, with the apparently locale-specific coloration); but morphs can interbreed and produce viable offspring, so they could be considered a species under the conventional definition. Hybrids, however, present a bit of a conundrum, as with many reptiles hybrid animals by conventional definition can produce viable offspring, making them at least eligible for species designation under the conventional definition. In the end, DNA profiling will most likely have the last say, at least when most everyone agrees what the correct DNA similarity percentage for a species is [ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ] | ||
<< Previous Message: is taxonomy really that simple? - rhyion, Sat Jan 14 13:14:53 2006 |
AprilFirstBioEngineering | GunHobbyist.com | GunShowGuide.com | GunShows.mobi | GunBusinessGuide.com | club kingsnake | live stage magazine
|