What are Species?

For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation and exhibition of cacti & other succulents.
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.

Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
IanW
Registered Guest
Posts: 3807
https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Branch: LEEDS
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Member

Re: What are Species?

Post by IanW »

Interesting to see this gaining more mainstream traction, it's something I've long argued that the concept of species and the practice of taxonomy is a fundamentally contradictory topic and so more of an art than a science because it is so arbitrary.

Which isn't to say it's useless, or serves no purpose - it does, in the same way that some people call a car a car, but when you phone up for your MOT the garage wants something a bit more useful than that - what make and model is it? we have the same problem here, yes, the current taxonomic model is largely sufficient for hobbyists and trade, but in some areas of scientific study it's arbitrary nature is a real problem and that's precisely why things get reclassified all the time in the first place - because a useful arbitrary definition for one person is useless to another.
KarlR wrote:I don't think it's possible to find such a system. Even with DNA, there'll always be a question about which markers to use for which organism in a given branch/family, and between organisms belonging to different families - and even within the same families.
I fundamentally disagree, DNA sequences act as a unique identifier for a specimen or set of specimens thus it's inherently possible provide objective classification. What defines a species in an objective manner merely comes down to an accepted level of deviation. The only reason we rely on arbitrary markers is because it's historically not been technologically feasible to use the whole DNA sequence. That's changed, technology is more than capable of consuming larger data sets and approaches such as machine learning and big data could quite happily classify species in an objective manner right now, the problem is I suspect some people wont like it because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions of what the groupings should be, it also means simplistic naming such as Genus species are no longer fit for purpose. You're effectively arguing that we'll always be constrained by certain constraints because we'll continue to apply those constraints - that's obviously a circular argument as there is an alternative, we could just stop restricting ourselves to those constraints.

But therein lies the fundamental disconnect with reality that taxonomy suffers, the contradiction at it's very core. It tries to be a science for the scientific community, whilst also trying to please the average joe by giving them a useful way to name their pets or plants. You can't do both - you either do something scientifically sound, or you do something convenient for the average joe, and until taxonomy resolves that contradiction at it's very core it'll continue to be hamstrung into doing a half arsed job for both sides.

I've just got back from Bonaire and am incredibly confused about the Melocactus species there and the futility of trying to use single discrete definitions for them (I'll post separately about that). I also had the opportunity to do the Coral Conservation Diver course there and the similarities between that and our hobby were too profound to be merely coincidental, despite the fact coral are animals, and cactus are plants. The more I see, experience of, and learn about nature, the less useful taxonomy looks as a rigorous scientific tool, and the more I see common patterns across living systems. The more I see, the more I firmly believe life evolves across even the most grossly differing environments based on sets of common recurrent patterns, and less to the tune of arbitrary discrete divisions humans try to define it by. We need to accept that as a species, we're just not very good with big numbers, and that by trying to make things easy for ourselves through oversimplification we're at risk of leading ourselves down a path of misunderstanding. That doesn't mean we can't keep simple definitions too, we just have to strongly caveat their limitations in much the same way that whilst Newton's laws are great approximations for most basic physics calculations they're fundamentally flawed when you want a deeper understanding of the universe.

So sure, let's keep the simplified approach to classification taxonomy has historically provided. But let's also encourage those who try to go beyond that as the author of this book clearly has, because they're the ones thinking about the future, rather than letting themselves be bound about the very human limitations that stem from the past.
User avatar
DaveW
BCSS Member
Posts: 8154
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Branch: NOTTINGHAM
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Branch President
Location: Nottingham

Re: What are Species?

Post by DaveW »

Found this whilst browsing the web:-

https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2 ... -classify/
Nottingham Branch BCSS. Joined the then NCSS in 1961, Membership number 11944. Cactus only collection.
Post Reply