Picking up where I left off on post #48. Again, coming from this
literature.
The Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept
Cronquist (1988) ... defines species as
"... the smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct and distinguishable by ordinary means."
Well that clears it up.
Three comments must be made about this definition.
You think?
First, "ordinary means" includes any techniques that are widely available, cheap and relatively easy to apply.
Any techniques? Well that clears it up.
For example, to a botanist working with angiosperms ordinary means might mean a hand lens; to an entomologist working with beetles it might mean a dissecting microscope; to a phycologist working with diatoms it might mean a scanning electron microscope.
Kinda like how to a Hindu, the Vedas would be ordinary means, and to a Muslim, the Qu'ran would be ordinary, and so on and so forth. Is that how we are defining 'ordinary' means, since these are all 'techniques' as well.
Oh, btw, 'scanning electron microscopes' aren't exactly cheap.
But all this seems so trivial since we are really just trying to get at a definition, that is hopefully accessible to all, even if the practicality of tools are not necessarily accessible to all. I really do think that is trivial, since the specific branches of scientific study, when starting here on the ground floor (finding reasonable definitions) is far removed from that, and the case for those items, is more in the extraordinary means domain, rather than ordinary means. Suffice it to say, a hand lens is a tool that could aid in distinguishing the smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct. Perhaps some elitist type scientist would disagree that this is 'best tool for the job,' but here in low level understanding, let us say it is sufficient tool for the job. Carry on.
What means are ordinary are determined by what is needed to examine the organisms in question.
This seems between presumptuous and logical fallacy to assume this is how the definition can be made in reasonable way. Ordinary means are ordinary means, and not means that vary based on needs of examiner. Otherwise what is arguably extraordinary means (not accessible to all) could be deemed "ordinary" by select few and made to fit the definition. Thus a rather subjective claim.
I'll let this slide, but is a point that a bit ridiculous to toss in there as if this is entirely 'reasonable.'
Second, the requirement that species be persistently distinct implies a certain degree of reproductive continuity.
Yeah, we covered this under folk definition.
This is because phenetic discontinuity between groups cannot persist in the absence of a barrier to interbreeding.
Nope, no jargon being used here. (Rolls eyes)
Signs of jargon (and/or mumbo jumbo) would be using the following in the same assertion:
discontinuity.... cannot persist .. in absence of
Here's the part where those who support this sort of mumbo jumbo say, "but, but, we're just trying to be accurate."
I'll admit, I'm a little intellectually lost at the result of that assertion, and while that could be a question of my intelligence (fair claim), I would say it is more a choice of language being employed, coupled with conceptual understandings up to this point being under explained in the material (i.e. what does phenetic mean).
If I used (almost) same language with regard to spiritual assertion, I think the "mumbo jumbo" factor would become, how you say, obvious. Here, I'll try it.
"Finally, the requirement that seekers of divinity be persistently earnest implies a certain degree of ongoing devotion.
This is because mystical discontinuity between specific ideas cannot persist in the absence of a barrier to understanding."
That's clear, right?
Anyway, I'll give it the ol' college try to understand what was being purported in the assertion. 2 parts in that statement, really:
Part 1: phenetic discontinuity between groups cannot persist
Means: Dissimilarity between groups is not maintained
Part 2: in the absence of a barrier to interbreeding
Means (with reference to part 1): if there is an obstacle to interbreeding.
With the over reliance on negative connotations in the assertion, I sincerely wonder if there is way to say it in one, shorter, positive way. But since I'm admittedly not 100% sure what is being conveyed, I hesitate to do so. I tried to do that with my 'part 2 translation,' but not sure how well I did on that count.
Third, this definition places a heavy, though not exclusive, emphasis on morphological characters. It also recognizes phenetic characters such as chromosome number, chromosome morphology, cell ultrastructure, secondary metabolites, habitats and other features.
I've got to say, IMO, "morphological" is a jargon term. Someone reading this, go start a thread in "general discussion" subforum, along lines of, "Do you think the morphological characters of plants influences our desires to eat certain vegetables?" And let's just see how many people are either 'in the dark' or thrown off by what the heck 'morphological' has to do with what is actually being said. And/or could that be put into terms that us not in the domain of biology (as dedicated study) are more familiar with?
IMO, what this third comment is saying about the original statement (the smallest groups that are consistently and persistently distinct) is that we are going to need a whole branch of understanding (jargon) to specify what the heck we mean by this overarching assessment of phenomenon. To the point where the definition will be lost in the haze of "well look how finely detailed we got in our description of things."
1 more concept to go in the material. But I'll get to that in another post.
