2000 new mammals

[C C]

Scientists at a University in Texas has devised a new system of defining a Mammal species. This will be based on genetics, if accepted it will result in the recognition of many more species of Mammal. They recon they could increase the list to another 2000 species.

I was wondering, would we (the general public) be able to id these new species, or would we all have to invest in a laboritory.

[wyevilla]

I suspect that most of these new species will be geographically isolated groups that may well have been thought of as races of what, thus far, have been thought of as diverse species. An example of such a candidate could well be the tiger (Panthera tigris), where there are quite distinct sub-species occuring in climatic regions and on separate islands.

For most of us this reclassification is largely academic. However I can see this change as maybe a way of strengthening the hand of those involved in conservation as there is likely to be much more outcry to prevent the extinction of a full species rather than "merely" the loss of a sub-species or race.

[John]

Originally Posted by wyevilla

For most of us this reclassification is largely academic. However I can see this change as maybe a way of strengthening the hand of those involved in conservation as there is likely to be much more outcry to prevent the extinction of a full species rather than "merely" the loss of a sub-species or race.

That sounds good sound reasoning to me.

John

[C C]

Originally Posted by wyevilla

I suspect that most of these new species will be geographically isolated groups that may well have been thought of as races of what, thus far, have been thought of as diverse species. An example of such a candidate could well be the tiger (Panthera tigris), where there are quite distinct sub-species occuring in climatic regions and on separate islands.

For most of us this reclassification is largely academic. However I can see this change as maybe a way of strengthening the hand of those involved in conservation as there is likely to be much more outcry to prevent the extinction of a full species rather than "merely" the loss of a sub-species or race.

Thanks for reply. My 13yr Daughter posted thread. She had read an article on some site about Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic species concept( think that's right), and was curious. So, i persuaded her to do her own little research into the matter. Though, the original question was, if the focus was on genetic isolation rather than reprodutive isolation, how many species would there then be with humans.
As you can imagine my eyes glazed over, and i pretended to have a headache.

Christian.

[wyevilla]

Thank your daughter for highlighting this issue. Sounds like she is becoming a handy scientist. Keep up the good work!

[Adam Cheeseman]

Originally Posted by C C

Thanks for reply. My 13yr Daughter posted thread. She had read an article on some site about Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic species concept( think that's right), and was curious. So, i persuaded her to do her own little research into the matter. Though, the original question was, if the focus was on genetic isolation rather than reprodutive isolation, how many species would there then be with humans.
As you can imagine my eyes glazed over, and i pretended to have a headache.

Christian.

I'm sure anthropologists secretly have 'tick' lists of all the various races of humans. Seriously though, I had wondered why the human race hadn't been broken down into different species like most other wildlife when other taxa are split, lumped, and resplit on features less determining than genetics. Perhaps being reclassified would be too uncomfortable for us to bear?

Cheers,

Adam

[wyevilla]

Homo sapiens has to be classed as a single species. I cannot think of any instance where any research has shown reduced fertility as a result of inter-racial parenting.

Apart from some superficial racial differences, it seems to me that human beings are a pretty homologous species which can interbreed with alacrity once geographical boundaries are crossed.

I suspect that the period of 2-3 million years of isolation is insufficient for speciation to take place for such a long-lived and slow to mature mammal.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

I'm sure anthropologists secretly have 'tick' lists of all the various races of humans. Seriously though, I had wondered why the human race hadn't been broken down into different species like most other wildlife when other taxa are split, lumped, and resplit on features less determining than genetics. Perhaps being reclassified would be too uncomfortable for us to bear?

Cheers,

Adam

I've wished for years that you could get a field guide to people, there does seem to be facial and skeletal differences between races of people with some features particular to where they originated - of course some - like the 'roman' nose may have become fairly widespread too - but then that would be interesting to be able to spot someone's ancestory and the ancient (or more recent) spread of peoples by certain features.....