• higgsboson@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    MFW someone pretends there is a universally accepted definition of “species.”

      • higgsboson@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        … yes? Did you not read your own link? There are several definitions of “species” offered. Go have a look at how this applies to Cannabis and perhaps you will get my point.

    • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      What’s wrong with the definition about being able to make fertile offspring?

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        Life is much more complicated than the middle school definition. Some of the more interesting species are “sterile” crosses that have overcome the sterility. For example the ancestry of wheat.

        Wheat is mostly a hexaploid aka 6 copies of each chromosome. It arose from a triploid interspecific cross (triploids are always sterile) that spontaneously doubled (hexaploids are fertile).

        As a hexaploid it can be crossed to diploid rye to produce fertile offspring called triticale (tetraploid). Crossing triticale to either wheat or rye creates sterile offspring (pentaploid & triploid)

        So are they all one species because they can sometimes produce fertile offspring?