[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