Darwin was onto something

gordon 2

Senior Member
Very interesting perspective. The different and changing environment's role in the creation of subspecies seem evident enough and I think this is possibly not new concept. But the link to new species, less so. The "human effect" on the environment and the possible creation and elimination of subspecies is also interesting. But new species? The case for new species is commonly fossils and DNA. What is new in the author's work on species from her sources?

It seems she is stating that new species come from subspecies. I wonder what is her proof for this and indeed new? Interesting indeed.
 
Last edited:

NCHillbilly

Administrator
Around here, there are several relic Pleistocene species that can only survive at high elevations about 5,000-6,000', where the climate is similar to Canada. They got trapped on mountaintops when the glaciers receded, and now many of the mountaintops are like islands, with hostile environments for northern species between them. You can see where populations of salamanders, etc, are morphing into different species on isolated mountaintops, when they all started out the same.
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Very interesting perspective. The different and changing environment's role in the creation of subspecies seem evident enough and I think this is possibly not new concept. But the link to new species, less so. The "human effect" on the environment and the possible creation and elimination of subspecies is also interesting. But new species? The case for new species is commonly fossils and DNA. What is new in the author's work on species from her sources?

It seems she is stating that new species come from subspecies. I wonder what is her proof for this and indeed new? Interesting indeed.
How do you delineate species from sub species?
 
How do you delineate species from sub species?

Good question. Let me start here. There are at least 20 subspecies of whitetail deer in North America---mostly due to isolation to differing environments. They all have different physical aspects, but nevertheless they are all of the same species or all whitetail deer. Also in their species cervidae is moose, elk and caribou, they are said not other in intrinsic aspects ( antlers) than wt deer and all are cervids.

Now I understand that if new species from deer or cervids were to occur, due to environment, it would need be something or some beast separate from cervids, bovines, camalids or horses.
 
Last edited:
Good question. Let me start here. There are at least 20 subspecies of whitetail deer in North America---mostly due to isolation to differing environments. They all have different physical aspects, but nevertheless they are all of the same species or all whitetail deer. Also in their species cervidae is moose, elk and caribou, they are said not other in intrinsic aspects ( antlers) than wt deer and all are cervids.

Now I understand that if new species from deer or cervids were to occur, due to environment, it would need be something or some beast separate from cervids, bovines, camalids or horses.
Cervidae would be a family, not a species right? How do you delineate one species from another? Is it just different physical traits or something more?
 
I believe delineation is done simply for physical and behavioral traits... but their might be more. It was always my understanding that cervids (wt deer) was a species, but you are most likely right they are part of the cervid family. What I have issue with in the article is the inference that subspecies "presages new species ". How does a pig become a deer or a deer becomes a pig? Does it follow that because environment tailors subspecies-- subspecies tailor new species? Where is the evidence from the new research which until now seems only from DNA and fossils?
 
Last edited:
I believe delineation is done simply for physical and behavioral traits... but their might be more. It was always my understanding that cervids (wt deer) was a species, but you are most likely right they are part of the cervid family. What I have issue with in the article is the inference that subspecies "presages new species ". How does a pig become a deer or a deer becomes a pig? Does it follow that because environment tailors subspecies-- subspecies tailor new species? Where is the evidence from the new research which until now seems only from DNA and fossils?
So my layman’s understanding of what delineates a species is animals that are closely related enough that they can breed and produce fertile offspring.

With subspecies you have the capacity to interbreed but it doesn’t happen typically due to geographic isolation so you end up with groups with different traits.

The reason I asked how you make the delineation was to know if it you shared or took issue with this common understanding.

Are you familiar with ring species?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
 
So my layman’s understanding of what delineates a species is animals that are closely related enough that they can breed and produce fertile offspring.

With subspecies you have the capacity to interbreed but it doesn’t happen typically due to geographic isolation so you end up with groups with different traits.

The reason I asked how you make the delineation was to know if it you shared or took issue with this common understanding.

Are you familiar with ring species?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Thanks. This is very interesting. And thanks for the clarification of what is a species and subspecies. Much appreciated. So with these definitions I understand now what "presage new species means." Thanks again. Like you mentioned earlier, I was asking questions related to "families" which the article does not talk about.
 
Top