List of species I've seen

Kakapo said:
-there is an hybridation zone of both taxa (that should imply or at least make very probable that the two taxa cannot be different species. But would be interesting to know if the hybrids are sterile or not)
Click to expand...
Here you provide an actual explanation (or at least a big part of it) of your taxonomic reasoning, which you have left very unclear for years. This does seem fairly consistent with many of the taxonomic opinions you've shared. I don't agree with this assessment, but I'm happy to hear more is going on than your arbitrary "logic and knowledge".
 
Kakapo said:
But with the first article alone, there is plenty of coverage of the subject. I learned things such as:
-what I believed to be species Macaca siberu and Macaca pagensis are actually also subspecies of Macaca nemestrina (tough as they're narrowly endemic insular taxa, the lack of hybridation may raise them to species level more quickly than in northern-southern pig taileds)
-there is an hybridation zone of both taxa (that should imply or at least make very probable that the two taxa cannot be different species. But would be interesting to know if the hybrids are sterile or not)
-genetic research has been done already and the conclusion was to keep these taxa as subspecies, before other authors decided to spilt.
Click to expand...
I feel like you need to read the paper properly (or read more than the first few paragraphs) because you don't appear to have understood it.
 
Chlidonias said:
I feel like you need to read the paper properly (or read more than the first few paragraphs) because you don't appear to have understood it.
Click to expand...

I suspect he has taken the sentence "taxonomically, there are four species of macaques (M. nemestrina, M. leonina, M. siberu, and M. pagensis) that were once classified as M. nemestrina across Southeast Asia" and, having already concluded that he will lump nemestrina and leonina no matter what on the usual grounds of "tradition trumps all" and "LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE", has decided that this "proves" that siberu and pagensis merit lumping into nemestrina too :P in which case it isn't a lack of understanding, it's merely deliberate misinterpretation to suit his existing agenda.
 
Oh damn, I wrote a complete reply to each and it has been lost. Well, again but more resumed:

Birdsandbats: Since what the knowlegde and the logic or common sense are ARBITRARY?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!? Also, this is not my taxonomic reasoning, it's the taxonomic reasoning of Science. I'm not a taxonomist myself, I just follow the best experts on the matter. Also, I never have left nothing unclear.

Chlidonias, please, as I appreciate you (and even admire you), please I can ask you that don't join to the club of people that just sowed here evident lies like a couple of people did in this thread before, it will makes you lose your credibility. You should read things properly, and check before saying the first thing that crosses your mind. It's not that difficult to check I mentioned things that are not in the first paragraphs.

And to Dave, just I don't feel surprised that in this forum, admins/mods act like the bulliers and spammers that they're supposed to fight against. Because it happened (and not few times) before (especially by you), even in this thread too. If you think that your will got what you want (irritate me or make me abandon this place), you're very wrong. I'm here to stay and still will defend that 2 + 2 = 4. I don't think you deserve other kind of reply.

Coming back to common sense, please:


QUEEN ANGELFISH
full

Photo by @RatioTile. Children's aquarium at Fair Park Dallas, USA

QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
full

Photo by @ZooElephantsMan. Woods Hole science aquarium, USA

QUEEN WRASSE
full

Photo by @RatioTile. Children's aquarium at Fair Park Dallas, USA

QUINCE MONITOR
full

Photo by @MagpieGoose. Chester zoo, UK
 
Kakapo said:
-what I believed to be species Macaca siberu and Macaca pagensis are actually also subspecies of Macaca nemestrina (tough as they're narrowly endemic insular taxa, the lack of hybridation may raise them to species level more quickly than in northern-southern pig taileds)
Click to expand...

As @Chlidonias said, that is not what was written there.

Kakapo said:
-there is an hybridation zone of both taxa (that should imply or at least make very probable that the two taxa cannot be different species. But would be interesting to know if the hybrids are sterile or not)
Click to expand...

If you had actually opened the 3rd article (just click on the pdf button) you would see that the hybrids are not sterile, and hybridization has happened in zoos too. But given you are stuck with a Biological Species Concept of the early 1960s and have pretended science since that hasn't happened, you won't believe me anyway when writing that a narrow stable hybrid zone in itself can be seen as evidence of actual speciation. Hybridization is something that is happening a lot and following your reasoning polar bears and brown bears would be the same species, given natural fertile hybrids exist and have existed more widely in the past. The same goes for ruddy duck and white-headed duck, they hybridise and produce fertile offspring. Countless examples among a large variety of taxonomic groups that hybridisation happens in nature too (and can be a force of speciation in itself).

In the case of pig-tailed macaques, the narrow stable hybrid zone is evidence of secondary contact between the northern and southern, which were divided geographically in the past. As a hybrid zone exists scientists nowadays see this as evidence that these are indeed two different species. Although reproductive isolation has not been reached, there is some form of reproductive barrier as we would otherwise expect northern and southern pig-tailed macaques to hybridize much more widely then only in a narrow zone at the secondary point of contact and the genomes of the two parent taxa to be more mixed.

Kakapo said:
Birdsandbats: Since what the knowlegde and the logic or common sense are ARBITRARY?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!? Also, this is not my taxonomic reasoning, it's the taxonomic reasoning of Science. I'm not a taxonomist myself, I just follow the best experts on the matter. Also, I never have left nothing unclear.
Click to expand...

It is arbitrary since you only seem to accept what was established by experts in the 1960s and treat all the changes later as nonsense and an affront to your personal common sense.
 
lintworm said:
(and can be a force of speciation in itself).
Click to expand...

For instance, to cite an example within the genus in question, the Stump-tailed Macaque is believed to be the result of introgressive hybridisation between Crab-eating Macaque and Assam Macaque around the time the latter species diverged from the Tibetan Macaque.
 
Kakapo said:
Chlidonias, please, as I appreciate you (and even admire you), please I can ask you that don't join to the club of people that just sowed here evident lies like a couple of people did in this thread before, it will makes you lose your credibility. You should read things properly, and check before saying the first thing that crosses your mind. It's not that difficult to check I mentioned things that are not in the first paragraphs.
Click to expand...
From what you posted as "I learned things such as..." it did not appear as if you had read much of the paper - or, if you had read the entire paper, did not understand what it said.

The paper certainly does not conclude that the Mentawai macaques are subspecies of M. nemestrina. It does seem like you read the first two sentences in the second paragraph of the Background ["Fooden (1975) classified M. nemestrina into three subspecies: M. nemestrina nemestrina (Southern/Sundaland pig-tailed macaque), M. nemestrina leonina (Northern/Indochinese pig-tailed macaque) and M. nemestrina pagensis (Mentawai macaques). Albrecht (1980) supported these classifications based on regression analysis on skull and body size to latitude, as did Rosenblum et al. (1997), who used 2.3 Kb of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragments."], and then either stopped reading or simply chose to ignore the entire rest of the paper. I actually read the entire paper just to see where else you could have "learned that they were subspecies of nemestrina" and that is the only part of the paper which mentions them as having been considered subspecies. Your statement that "genetic research has been done already and the conclusion was to keep these taxa as subspecies, before other authors decided to split" also appears to be based entirely on the second of those two sentences.


With regards to (paraphrased) "an hybridation zone of both taxa ... should imply or at least make very probable that the two taxa cannot be different species" - hybridisation between related but distinct species is incredibly common. It is prevalent in, just as a few examples, ducks, pheasants, gibbons, canids, parrots, cichlids...

I doubt you would conclude that there is only a single species of Ara, yet hybrids between them are fully fertile. Golden and Lady Amherst's Pheasants, or Canaries and Red Siskins are other obvious pairings in aviculture which make fertile hybrids and yet are clearly not the same species.

Hybrid zones between distinct species are a well-known occurrence in the wild. And new species of hybrid origin can even arise, as is probably the case with the Stump-tailed Macaque and Indochinese Grey Langur.
 
lintworm said:
Hybridization is something that is happening a lot and following your reasoning polar bears and brown bears would be the same species, given natural fertile hybrids exist and have existed more widely in the past
Click to expand...
More research needs to be done, but even under a phylogenetic species concept (which I don't fully prescribe to), the status of brown and polar bears may not be the two species commonly recognized today. I'll see if I can find the article again, but I remember reading a scientific paper a few months ago detailing that brown bears are actually paraphyletic, with polar bears being located right in the middle of brown bears. Granted, I would expect that scientists will be more inclined to split brown bears than lump brown and polar bears, but the currently accepted model may not be that way for much longer.

@Kakapo: while I can certainly understand the appeal of the biological species concept, it quickly falls apart when you reach birds, where hybrids become significantly more common. There's certainly not only a single species of macaw, despite the prevalence of hybrids there, and waterfowl also have hybrids as prevalent. While I am not a botanist so aren't as well versed in the matter, I've been told it's even more problematic in the plant kingdom as well.
 
Kakapo said:
don't join to the club of people that just sowed here evident lies like a couple of people did in this thread before
Click to expand...
Just so you know, most people don't like to be called liars. It's pretty clear to which members you are referring her. I think I speak for everyone that has gone into a discussion with you when I say that we do not try to attack you personally. It is hard for me and many others to see someone spread information that is not following the current scientific revisions & calling those the only facts. Science constantly evolves, but standing behind the latest publications does not make any of us liars. I would not call you one either, despite your constant spread of misinformation from my point of view. Since you are often the only person that follows a certain taxonomic view and most others oppose this, you might want to consider choosing your words more nicely. It is those strong reactions and your refusal to accept that people think differently that make this topic continue to be a centre of discussion. I do not have any problems with you personally. It's the fact that your slightly outdated (apologies for calling it that way) taxonomy might confuse others, that makes me and others want to respond over and over again. I simply want to make sure that those who don't know anything about animal taxonomy won't end up even more confused than before because they met someone that gives them nonfactual information. Nonfactual, for the time being. Again, who knows what future revisions will change. Just don't be too fast to judge every publication of the last decade, researchers do a lot of work to get their work published. Some things end up wrong in the end, but since you have such a strong opinion in this matter, you should challenge yourself and write your own papers to prove others to be wrong. I would love to read them, honestly. Until that, most of us will still accept information accessible online that is considered proven by scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top