Bardzo mądra rozmowa

JEst to rozmowa z ATS odpowiedz Stanleya Schultza ( hyba nie musze kto to jest )
w rozmowie o chybrydach ,,

dla mniej obeznanych w angielszczyźnie streszcze ze chodzi mniejwięcej oto co od dawna powtazałem , tzn ze nie ma czegos takiego jak hybryda międzygatunkowa u pająków ,, nasze brachypelmy sa najprawdopodobniej jednym gatunkiem i ze systematyka jako twór sztuczny i niedokadny ogranicza nasze dalsze poznawanie zalerzności w świecie pająków .. ... nic wsumie nowego ale potwierdzone autorytetem który nie jest tak prosty do obalenia jak ja :P:P:P:P

miłej lektórki ,,,



> Hybrid and species are not exclusive at all. Maybe in T's, but not in
> the whole of biology.

By definition, a hybrid organism is the result of a cross between two
distinguishable species. This dictum is from Biology 101.

Last I heard the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature does
not recognize hybrids. They do recognize species, subspecies and families.
(They do not formally recognize any taxa higher than family either.)

> And even if you take a continuum view in that a "species" is a range of
> similar organisms, there is no question that B. vagans and B. smithi are
> very different.

So are Chihuahuas and Great Danes very different but we think they're the
same species. The argument that they're the same species is based on an
intuitive assumption founded on thousands of years experience with dogs.
But our formal definition of dogs is based largely on sorting out the
characteristics common to all the animals that we *THINK* are dogs and
that are not present in "non-dogs." Then we state quite authoritatively
that any animals that don't possess those criteria are not dogs. It's a
circular argument ultimately based on our prejudices and then rubber
stamped by our logical methods for rationalizing our statement.

What makes you think that B. vagans and B. smithi aren't just forms of the
same species just like Chihuahuas and Great Danes are forms of Canis
familiaris?

> And while a single hybrid, would not be a species at all,

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

> ... if a population was around long enough, you might be able to say the
> new continuum is different enough from the two parent species to be a
> species itself.

I have no idea what the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature would have to say about this, but no doubt over geologic time
this sort of thing happens.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, its botanical
counterpart and taxonomy in general are human artifacts trying to describe
in a very bureaucratic way a phenomenon that is observed in nature.
Taxonomists do their jobs by bunching various living organisms together in
groups and those groups into hierarchies in an effort to reveal some
underlying or fundamental relationships.

However, the natural phenomena that they are trying to describe are not
"digital" ones that occur in discrete steps until one considers the
relevant organisms one at a time. And, that one-by-one consideration is
antithetical to taxonomy's underlying, bureaucratic, "bunching"
philosophy. The informational technologist/engineer would say that the A/D
board has a bug!

I restate my original premise: Taxonomy may have done a good job up till
now, but now we understand the subject a lot better than 250 years ago.
Some of us are beginning to understand that the current taxonomy's
shortcomings are beginning to inhibit and even prevent us from fully
understanding how life on this planet really works. I for one am convinced
that we need to start spending a lot less time trying to count beetles and
spiders, and a lot more time trying to develop an organizational system
(or model) that realistically describes the kinds of organisms that we're
now presented with in the first place, and how they really interact.

> ... Also, while hybrids are found, I doubt any will be of the WC
> persuasion, and CB would probably cost an arm and a leg as most morons
> that hybridize think they've done something neat and should be paid for
> it. Personally, and I've said this before, 2x4 before hybridizing!

Hybridizing? What's a hybrid?

And yes, it's another taxonomy debate. But what else do you plan to
unravel for the rest of your life?

:-)


Along came a spider,
who sat down beside her,
and Little Miss Muffit grabbed him,
and stuffed him in a bottle,
and took him to school for "Show and Tell!"

Stan Schultz
Vice-President, AMERICAN TARANTULA SOCIETY

Hmm jesli sie przyjmie, ze hybrydy nie sa plodne itp, to uznanie roznych Brachypelm jako odmiany jednego gatunku by tlumaczylo wyjatkowosc krzyzowek pomiedzy nimi :)
Ciekawa mysl, rzeczywiscie bedzie o czym dyskutowac :)

He ,he wszystkie brachypelmy jednym gatunkiem?No cóz ,niech specjalisci zajmują sie systematyką.Byc moze to prawda ,byc moze nie.To by wyjasniało wątpliwosci czy hybrydy mogą byc płodne i co to jest własciwie hybryda.Dla mnie to i tak w zasadzie bez róznicy bo dalej bede dopuszczał smithi do smithi ,a vagansa do vagansa.Jaka to róznica czy to osobne gatunki czy tylko rasy -jak u psów?I tak nie "zbieram" pajączków jak znaczków i ilosc gatunków w hodowli niezbyt mnie interesuje.Ale koncepcja jest ciekawa,i dyskutowac nad tym mozna długo.

no na sam fakt hodowli nie wpłynie ale da mozliwość lepszej kontroli mieszańców , bo teraz mówisz sprzedaje taki gatunek , a naprawde jest to hybryda , potem (po zmianie) będziesz miał zwykłego " kundla" a nie chybryde/inny gatunek :P a więc stracą one na wartości :P . da to terz podstawy do tworzenia schematów określających czystość rasową - ( duzo prostrsze niz oznaczanie gatunków ) - tzn porównanie pająka do ogulnie przyjętego wzorca rasy - kazdy głupek to zrobi mając np linijke i dobre oko :p

ale i tak niezaprzeczalnie najwięcej kozyści będzie dla osub mających bardziej naukowe podejście :P