Message 2003-06-0005: Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS

Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:39:13 -0400

[Previous by date - RE: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Next by date - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Previous by subject - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Next by subject - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:39:13 -0400
From: JRW <jrwakefield@convergeadv.com>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS

Did not know that, thanks for the clarification.  I knew Linnaeus did
classify chimps under Homo, an interesting thing considering he was a
creationist (of the time) and current creationists love to cite him.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
To: "JRW" <jrwakefield@convergeadv.com>; "David Marjanovic"
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>;
<dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS
> Actually, Homo has taxonomic priority over Pan, so we're all in Homo.
> (Which is where, after all, Linnaeus actually PUT chimpanzees!).
>
> Also, genetic distance between taxa and genetic diversity within species
are
> two different things.  For example, the amount of genetic diversity in any
> given population of chimps in a hillside in central Africa is greater than
> the genetic diversity of all 6 billion Homo sapiens.

Now that *IS* interesting.  Low genetic diversity is not healthy to a
population when the environment changes.  Luckily we have our intelect
(well, some of us anyway).

Richard



  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!