ZephyrZ
But.....DRAGONS
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
- Messages
- 11,015
- Location
- Southern California
- NNID
- AbsolBlade
- 3DS FC
- 4210-4109-6434
- Switch FC
- SW-1754-5854-0794
The issue with this definition is that species that supposedly "can't" reproduce sometimes do, like the aforementioned grizzly and polar bears. They used to be seperated geographically but climate change is causing their territories to overlap more. So what do we do? Say they used to be seperate species but aren't anymore? Wait foe them to interbreed more? Come up with a new name for the hybrids like we did with red wolves (which is its own can of worms).The colloquial wisdom?
Right. I think I just got mansplained.
Not to mention that that definition of species is completely useless on organisms who reproduce aesexually. It's not useful on fossils either since we have no way of studying their breeding patterns.
Right now it's less "species are defined when they produce fertile offspring with eachother" and more "species are defined when they produce offspring with eachother except when it doesn't apply or scientist say so".
I reccomend this video. It touches up on thw basics of the species problem and how blurry our definitions can be.
P.S. Either you misunderstood my point or youbfon't know what "mansplaining" is.