Ligiger born in Siberia - should zoos allow these hybrids?

aquina wrote: »

The biological species concept only applies to certain organisms who reproduce sexually i.e. mate. It is impossible to apply it throughout the animal kingdom as it cannot apply to asexual organisms.

Determining a species or subspecies more often than not uses a combination of concepts. But as I once read "If it saves a forest then lets call it a species" which shows the entire process to be open to personal and possibly bias interpretation.

And if I recall correctly Darwin trained as a doctor before turning to natural history not geology...

Meow

Yes, of course, the biological species concept only applies to sexually reproducing species, it's part of the definition. I'll write up a more detailed post later, if I have time.

Yes, you're right. There are many definitions of species and not all described species are considered separate species for the same reasons. For example how do you prove two dinosaurs are separate species (biological species) if you can't observe their breeding habits? Palaeontologists use the morphospecies concept.

Darwin actually dropped out of medicine in Edinburgh and went on to study a Bachelor of Arts degree in Cambridge (with a view to joining the clergy). As far as I'm aware Darwin always had an interest in nature/ natural history before and during his University education (I think he joined a club in university with the mission to eat one of every species). Darwin joined the Beagle expedition as a geologist not a biologist.

To be honest I see the idea of species as being an impostion that we place on the universe rather than object truth. It serves a purpose and seems, at least superficially, natural to our minds.

Still, I'm glad my post inspired you to join the forum. Have fun.