RE: Species [arbitrary to a degree]

[Waylon Rowley <whte_rbt_obj@yahoo.com>]

--- "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
wrote:
> What you have posted is even closer to the standard
> Biological Species Concept 

I see. I wanted to add that behavioral element to it. 


> However, it still doesn't work for fossils (can't 
> test it), nor can it be tested outside of direct 
> field observations.  Doesn't mean it is a bad 
> definition, just one which is only testable in a 
> fraction of the cases.

       I can imagine a day in the future when
paleontologists will scan fossil bones and form a kind
of digital genome from the remains of the animal, then
compare it with others. If you scanned modern animal
bones and found a correlation between a certain amount
of phenotypic change and BCS, then you would have the
morphological equivalent, which could be applied to
fossils. But then again, why not use the time
machine??? 
       Oh well, we'll either have to wait for the
technology or someone brighter than myself who can
come up with a better idea. 

Cheers,
Waylon Rowley    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com