Scolopendra sp. "Tiger Legs"

cacoseraph

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
8,325
Hi caco; :clap: nice observation, I've been wrong when I said mitocondrial DNA give code to a externar morphology. I didn't think too much when I wrote that.

In other hand, like you well say, one polymorphic gene in a mytocondria, only say that can be a posibility of a little diference between mytocondrias of a diferent population. So if you have a new mytocondria ( extremly rare just in a mutation of a 20% of 1 gen of 16,000 genes) maybe this mutation can make the pede death ( most provable) o can make the evolution of the pede, to a new sp.

The provability of this pede will be a new sp. is so low, that I can't beleave it. Is practically imposible. But who knows...

Cheers
Carles
well, one thing to consider... the concept of "species" is essentially an artifical construct imposed by humans in their constant attempt to quantify and qualify everything around them

"species" actually has several defintions... that is, ifyou spoke to a general biologist "species" might mean something a little different than if you were speaking to an evolutionary biologist.

so really, we should all agree on the definition of species and *then* we can reasonably talk about whether something would prove or disprove a species.
 

Galapoheros

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
8,982
I liked reading something from Shelley that helped myself define hard-core evidence of an animal being a species. If the babies that are the result of a breeding pair, can grow, breed and also produce viable young, that would confirm a species. Not his exact words but it made sense to me. But then again, some will say, ...depends on how you look at it, haha. I don't know enough about genetics to add anything else, but hey, did anybody else see this?

http://www.kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=6846295
 

cacoseraph

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
8,325
I liked reading something from Shelley that helped myself define hard-core evidence of an animal being a species. If the babies that are the result of a breeding pair, can grow, breed and also produce viable young, that would confirm a species. Not his exact words but it made sense to me. But then again, some will say, ...depends on how you look at it, haha. I don't know enough about genetics to add anything else, but hey, did anybody else see this?

http://www.kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=6846295
i think that is a traditional biological definition of species. producing viable young. there are problems with it though. there are certain VERY distinct species of butterflies that can intergrade and produce viables if they have this sort of strange pattern of what species' male mates with what species' female... and then that offspring will only produce viables with some other specific combination... anyhow... it is basically important to realize that there is some like, variation in what people might consider a species.
 

Galapoheros

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
8,982
Yeah I know a really smart guy that was trying to ID several animals as different species in an area. It looked obvious at first. Then the idea of "species" fell apart the more involved he became, got foggy and he stopped the research.
 

cacoseraph

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
8,325
Yeah I know a really smart guy that was trying to ID several animals as different species in an area. It looked obvious at first. Then the idea of "species" fell apart the more involved he became, got foggy and he stopped the research.
real life doesn't pigeonhole very well sometimes. the people who forget that seem to lead frustrated lives
 

gunslinger

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
356
Another problem with defining a species solely on if it produces viable young is this : many organisms that we clearly define as different species can interbreed and produce viable young, such as Ambystomatid salamanders. Also many seperate species in the lab will breed together fine if placed together, but for many different reasons in nature they wont. Defining what a species actually is, well that is really hard. And as caco very truly pointed out, is an artificial construct that changes across taxa.

BTW that article on the mule was also very cool stuff. Thanks for posting it.
 
Top