Time to re-define a "species"?

**Tostig** · June 15, 2006, 04:19 AM

Hmm, in an attempt to inject something scientific in here which isn't about conspiracy theories I went hunting for a harmless news item, and quickly found one.

Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.
In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.
The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.
The process has been likened to building a new bike from a pair of second-hand ones.
The Heliconius heurippa butterfly appears to be the product of a process called hybrid speciation.
Most species are thought to form when groups of organisms gradually diverge from one another over successive generations.
But these distinctive red and yellow butterflies seem to be the product of two existing varieties.

Now normally the difference between a species and a race is that two species are incapable of producing fertile offspring, however this article seems to say otherwise. What impact do you think a possible re-definition of species would have? In my opinion not much of one, certain not outside the scientific community, but then again I have a pessimistic view of people in general.

**HappeR** · June 15, 2006, 07:39 AM

HEY!!!

My 'alien thing' was NOT a conspiracy thing

**jw1089** · July 03, 2006, 10:23 PM

so basically this would describe how Humans in different regions of the world take on different general looks, such as how Africans look as opposed to asians and so on, or is that wrong?

**bdh** · July 03, 2006, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tostig

Hmm, in an attempt to inject something scientific in here which isn't about conspiracy theories I went hunting for a harmless news item, and quickly found one.

Now normally the difference between a species and a race is that two species are incapable of producing fertile offspring, however this article seems to say otherwise. What impact do you think a possible re-definition of species would have? In my opinion not much of one, certain not outside the scientific community, but then again I have a pessimistic view of people in general.

Its not that surprising. Anything within the same genus can likely breed. The real trick is ensuring that the offspring aren't sterile, which sometimes occurs when some different species are bred.

**allthesedamnnamesaretaken** · July 07, 2006, 06:25 PM

what about dogs? you can have different "breeds" of dogs but they are all of the same species. are you sure on your definition of species? if those two alledged "species" of butterflies can interbreed, then they should all be of the same species but of different race/breed, not the other way around

**Sétanta** · July 07, 2006, 06:41 PM

I am sure it is just like classifing dogs or cats which produce fertile offspring when crossbreeding (Or even fertile female ligers for that matter), meaning it is either an exception or it is a "breed"

**allthesedamnnamesaretaken** · July 07, 2006, 08:56 PM

maybe there are genetic criteria to species classification? maybe these 2 species have radically different DNA but are still able to produce fertile offspring? it's the only reason i can think of that would not put them into the same species

**Sam** · July 07, 2006, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tostig

What impact do you think a possible re-definition of species would have?

Clearly it's just the church of evilution changing their dogma to fit reality

.

**caratacus** · July 08, 2006, 04:16 AM

If indeed both Butterflies were of different species this may further support the theory that backwards evolution can occur, i.e. that evolution can occur sometimes produce a reversion of species advancement through cross breeding.

This theory is very controversial and dismissed by many in the Scientific community who argue that evolution can only be pro-gressive and not re-gressive. I however think it makes perfect sense that if you take away many of the influences of natural selection the genes that will dominate will not necessary be the most advanced and dynamic.

**carl-the-conqueror** · July 26, 2006, 09:52 AM

ever heard of a hybrid ???

the liger, for example
the mule?

both of which occasionally are fertile, there are probably thousands of animals that are hbrids, and the others the result of natural evolution

**Kanaric** · July 27, 2006, 01:11 PM

Its VERY rare they are fertile. Also their offspring isn't guarnteed to be fertile as well when the parents are.

With domesticated pets though their are strange combinations all the time that work. Like cats that are mixed with wild cats and their being fertile is more common than, say, mules.

**Richard** · July 28, 2006, 09:36 AM

I think some species need redifining. Having animals that can breed and produce fully fertile offspring classified as different species is effectivley the same as speciating humans or dogs on their race/breed characteristics. We don't have Homo Sapiens Africanis, or Canis Rottweileris, do we? I believe canines have now been reclassified into basically dogs, hyenas, and foxes, for instance. Why not do the same for any other species that can sucessfully produce fertile offspring (many deer, goat, cattle, primate[I believe a bonobo chimp and plain vanilla chimp can interbreed for instance], species come to mind).