[–] chirogonemd 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
The ability to breed and produce a viable offspring from a single breeding event is not sufficient to define two separate animals as being the same species. A lion and a tiger can mate and produce a "viable" offspring. A horse and a donkey can. You find that the rules tend to bend depending on the class. You may find biologists responsible for discovering two different frogs separated by 20 miles on a river will name these different species despite their ability to interbreed and being almost largely the same, except for occupying a different micro-habitat and possibly displaying some different behaviors.
The real issue is mongrelization. The offspring of two different 'species' may be viable, but over time genetic defects occur and accumulate, eventually leading to non-viability after a few generations. Intelligence will decrease. Fertility may be gone very quickly, and a first generation hybrid may be sterile.
But all humans are the same! Um, okay. Race mixing leads to mongrelization. This was a very specifically outlined goal of the Kalergi Plan. They realize that race mixing in humans leads to mongrel offspring, with the more events occuring over successive generations leading to greater and greater dilution of the favorable intelligence of the white european genetics.
[–] ZYX321 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
Unfortunately the definition of species isn't that straightforward, nor is there a specific definition or test agreed upon by all biologists.
The different breeds of dog would probably meet most tests for species if they occurred like that in the wild but would obviously still be able to breed. I believe grizzly and polar bears can breed.
Each has its ups and downs. Viruses, for example, mutate fast as fuck. Especially retroviruses. And they use cells to reproduce. So does this mean viruses and cells are the same species? Obviously you need different definitions depending on the context because, objectively speaking, the concept of a species came about only because humans like to put blurry things into nice, well-defined boxes.
[–] Anonymous_User_69 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Well let's forget about if we call it species or not. Either way this is not a significant discovery. It's nothing more than finding out poodles and labs can make labordoodles.
[–] Dortex 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Yes it is. A bird was introduced into an island where it was less likely to reproduce due to the other species' sexual preferences. He managed the unlikely feat then his offspring selectively bred with each other to the exclusion of the island's native species; a key trait of Speciation.
[–] ZYX321 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
And that the labradoodles have established a meaningful population.
Given the different behaviors and appearances of labradoodles to poodles or labs, I don't think it is as insignificant as you think.
Like most science, it is easy to imagine, but observing it happening in the wild is new. Additionally, in this case, the bird was not simply a mixture of the properties of the two parent species:
the newcomer, a male that sang an unusual song and was much larger in body and beak size than the three resident species of birds on the island
Edit: as dortex pointed out, that quote is regarding the new bird on the island that apparently flew in over a strait or something. Not the new offspring.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
[–] middle_path 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
You know lions and tigers can have children together, right? Also, what's a mule?
[–] Dortex ago
Viruses and cells can reproduce together. Must be the same species.
[–] Anonymous_User_69 ago
Those are non viable hybrids which cannot reproduce
[–] middle_path 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Oh fuck, I read what you originally said wrong.