From: Stewart Brand (sb@gbn.org)
Date: Thu Mar 23 2000 - 16:45:50 MST
At 2:54 PM -0800 3/23/00, John Gilmore wrote:
> > So far, systematic biologists are saying the project is 1) doable, 2)
> > eminently worth doing.
>
>Stewart, isn't the concept of "species" somewhat specious itself?
>I.e. there is no fixed line defining the variation among individuals
>in a single species, versus the existence of two or more distinct
>species. It seems to be a matter of argument among individual
>specialists in that particular branch of biology.
>
>It's sort of like having more powerful telescopes -- the more deeply
>you look, the more stars you see.
>
>This is briefly mentioned in chapter 34 "Species Loss Revisited" in
>_The State of Humanity_ by Julian L. Simon, ISBN 1-55786-119-6. If
>you can't tell what a species is, it's hard to inventory them,
>or determine whether we're gaining or losing them.
No, the concept of species has held up surprisingly well, and
fruitfully for biology. Example of the fruitfulness: Darwin.
Analysis of the dynamics of any biological community begins with
species identification; without it you have nothing. (My first
training was as a biologist at Stanford, and I stay current, if only
for the high yield of useful metaphors.)
There are certainly soft edges of definition at times, and some
microbes are famously promiscuous with their traits, and the debate
between "splitters" and "lumpers" in taxonomy continues, yet to me
one of the most astonishing phenomena of all biology is the stability
of species. Red squirrels are under constant pressure from black
squirrels to succumb or interbreed in central Michigan; their habitat
has altered drastically from white pine forests to jack pine and farm
land; the niche swerved, and yet the species is absolutely intact. I
find that constancy far more marvelous, and harder to explain, than
the origins of species.
Happily the arrival of DNA analysis has clarified matters enormously,
showing both the specificity of species and their relations and
history. Hence a note from Peter Warshall the other day noting that
storks now appear to be a weird form of vulture, or vice versa.
Meanwhile vultures and storks continue to make up a highly distinct
and stable set of species. Try looking a Marobou stork in the eye
(they're your height) and explaining about Julian Simon's theories of
biology. That same stork eyeballed the first humans.
Recall that identification of "genes" is a long debated issue. Yet
there they are, and the Human Genome Project shows what value you get
when you identify and map them all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:36 MST