Rare Fish pic From Rare Fish series

[dacox]

I always like hearing others' opinions on the subject, "what defines a species?" People argue about whether or not certain animals, plants, etc. are in fact unique species, subspecies, or just a variation of an already existing species. People can get very heated on the subject, and, as a result, the discussion turns in to more of an argument over who's right or wrong or my opinion's better than yours.

They say this or that characteristic does not fit in to the "species" definition and fail to realize what I consider the most significant aspect of the debate, what qualifies our definition of what a species is as being true. The discussion always seems to end up as a debate over semantics rather than the animal in question.

IMO, the definition of species is horribly outdated. Limiting a species to only those animals that can interbreed is asinine to me. Like they said, look at some of the hybrid fish out there. They result from parent fish that are completely different from eachother. Nature is nature, we created the current definition of species to try to understand it, but it's time that we revise it. Look at animals, in this case fish, for what they are, not how closely they fit a definition that was, at a time, our best effort to classify animals but now does not seem to work so well.

You can not have new species without evolution, and a large part of evolution may be interbreeding of animals we have considered separate species for a long time. Seems sort of contradictory to me. Anyways, that's my rant. I didn't mean to derail.

 

[fugupuff]

Perhaps speciation as a mechanism is best thought of as fluid, where there are subtle but significant changes over time. This does not erase the truthiness (Stephen Cobert nod) of their classification, as the truth gets more perfect over time. Scientific nomenclature (to tie in with your philosophical line above) is perhaps the finest example of Pragmatism there is.

very well said, pragmatism seems like all we're accomplishing, for some examples of fish:

gold fish, though line bred for centuries, all look different, all the same species.

cyphotilapia frontosa, for years the same species has now been split into gibberosa and frontosa!

p14, pearl ray, which both have not been scientifically described as a specie is hailed as a true specie, how do we know that indeed its a specie and not a naturally occuring hybrids?

 

[fugupuff]

I always like hearing others' opinions on the subject, "what defines a species?" People argue about whether or not certain animals, plants, etc. are in fact unique species, subspecies, or just a variation of an already existing species. People can get very heated on the subject, and, as a result, the discussion turns in to more of an argument over who's right or wrong or my opinion's better than yours.

They say this or that characteristic does not fit in to the "species" definition and fail to realize what I consider the most significant aspect of the debate, what qualifies our definition of what a species is as being true. The discussion always seems to end up as a debate over semantics rather than the animal in question.

IMO, the definition of species is horribly outdated. Limiting a species to only those animals that can interbreed is asinine to me. Like they said, look at some of the hybrid fish out there. They result from parent fish that are completely different from eachother. Nature is nature, we created the current definition of species to try to understand it, but it's time that we revise it. Look at animals, in this case fish, for what they are, not how closely they fit a definition that was, at a time, our best effort to classify animals but now does not seem to work so well.

You can not have new species without evolution, and a large part of evolution may be interbreeding of animals we have considered separate species for a long time. Seems sort of contradictory to me. Anyways, that's my rant. I didn't mean to derail.

so when will the revision begin? As most of the scientific community seem so preoccupied with lumping or splitting, taxonomists trying to come up with a new name to a specie.

 

[dacox]

Probably not for a while. That's why taxonomy is always cycling back and forth between lumping and splitting though. Their ultimate goal is to categorize things in to species, but we still are not really sure what defines a species. I guess we'll have to wait until genetic analysis becomes cheaper and more efficient before we can really know what defines a species or, perhaps more importantly, what traits make each creature unique.

 

[andregurov]

I think an important note to add here is that scientists and hobbyists tend to view species in different ways. For us, a species is a fish that is replicable and has solid phenotype (although obviously not always), and morphs and such fit under the species heading. For the scientific community, a species is "simply" a method to display evolutionary relationships between fishes. As those relationships are better understood, species tend to change. I don't know if there will ever be hard and fast rules to defining a species over the long term. Names are given simply as a map to understanding the whole.

I would disagree over a large part of evolution being hybridizing. Just look at the current aquatics market - almost all of these hybrids would have had no chance of meeting up in their natural habitats. Speciation is not usually (or perhaps better put, rarely) such a random act. Just look at the rather large populations of obviously closely-related species in Central American rivers, yet there are NO hybrids between them found in those river systems. Most of speciation thus far described had to do with small behavioral or morphological adaptations/evolutions giving a competitive edge, and these inheritable characteristics being passed on to offspring. Just look at the genus Herichthys to see speciation in action! {although such roadmaps to speciation are not all the same, to be sure}

 

[Edwin]

the best thread i have read in years

 

[dacox]

I would disagree over a large part of evolution being hybridizing. Just look at the current aquatics market - almost all of these hybrids would have had no chance of meeting up in their natural habitats. Speciation is not usually (or perhaps better put, rarely) such a random act. Just look at the rather large populations of obviously closely-related species in Central American rivers, yet there are NO hybrids between them found in those river systems. Most of speciation thus far described had to do with small behavioral or morphological adaptations/evolutions giving a competitive edge, and these inheritable characteristics being passed on to offspring. Just look at the genus Herichthys to see speciation in action! {although such roadmaps to speciation are not all the same, to be sure}

You're right. I didn't mean that hybridization was a large part. Natural selection is the hands down driving force of evolution. I meant that it may have played more of a roll in certain species, but it would definitely be a very small or even negligible role overall.

 

[fugupuff]

You're right. I didn't mean that hybridization was a large part. Natural selection is the hands down driving force of evolution. I meant that it may have played more of a roll in certain species, but it would definitely be a very small or even negligible role overall.

Ditto here, I think there is no absolute. I've read some accounts that many of the larger gaupote hericthys type fish actually do hybridize in the wild. And for flowerhorns, they're actually will survive and might be able to out compete their wild cogenere.

 

[Justin94565]

Interesting this thread is great.

 

[norma]

that is awesome