Taxonomic discussion

[Garter_Gertie]

I agree with Rhea, and I agree with Dekay.

Size has ssssoooo much to do with success. It's like a fish tank: it's easier to maintain a correct balance in a larger one than smaller since with smaller problems become more urgent or deadly more quickly due to the small size. A bigger tank is more forgiving with errors and there's more time to correct them.

[jitami]

Very good stuff guys! Thank you Stefan for finding that article and thank you Steven for interpreting some of it. A lot of it is over my head, but I love to learn, especially when the subject is near and dear to my heart. I need to look at range maps of tetrataenia a little closer, but there is still a decent amount of land in that area. Maybe this little recession we're in will halt building for a while? Now, whether more sensitive prey can survive on that land I don't know... is there any thought that perhaps the range could be expanded some or would that be too detrimental to that area's current occupants? It's sad no matter how you look at it, but I'm going to share Rhea's optimism for now.

[mtolypetsupply]

I have to compliment everyone on this forum. This seems like a topic that could have sparked arguement, flaming, etc. and, instead, it's been an *Intelligent Disucssion*. Oh, how refreshing, and what a pleasure!

Forgive me for not quoting you all directly, I don't know how to do multiple direct quotes, yet.

It was said we'll either finally decide what is right, or decide it's fruitless to try. I believe that the most valuable thing we can decide is that the nature of our Earth and all facets thereof is fluid, and continuous. We can only recognize that we need a frame of reference on that continuum, and that a consensus on classification is not an absolute and final answer as to what is "right" and what is "wrong".

but the classification is based on groups that have shared derived characteristics that stemmed from one common ancestor.

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

In cladistics, when you are referring to a "single common ancestor", you are actually referring to a particular species from which all others within the group derived. Please don't interpret it as evolution spinning around activities like incest or polygamy. Actually, in many cases it does, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Single common ancestor usually doesn't mean SINGLE (individual) ancestor; it's a reference to a species' collective!

Steve