http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/
So if the above is happening, the species is still the same right?
So if the above is happening, the species is still the same right?
If it can mate with the warm, low-level skinks, yes. If it can't, the egg-laying skink is a different species. The article suggests its the same species with two options for producing young.
An important point of note here is that these lizards live in Australia, which has Weird Animals that like messing around with evolution.
An important point of note here is that these lizards live in Australia, which has Weird Animals that like messing around with evolution.
This chicken discussion makes me think about testing this with a live chicken coop. 
I am loving the discussion. I favour the theory of the chicken coming first, but I wonder who laid the first egg.
A new World Record has been beaten yesterday. A hen has laid the smallest egg in the world.
http://cryptoworld.co.uk/no-yoke-ch...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Cryptoworld+(Cryptoworld)
I am loving the discussion. I favour the theory of the chicken coming first, but I wonder who laid the first egg.A new World Record has been beaten yesterday. A hen has laid the smallest egg in the world.
http://cryptoworld.co.uk/no-yoke-ch...&utm_campaign=Feed:+Cryptoworld+(Cryptoworld)
Anyone for a chicken coop game?
Do you have the Xbox One?
This chicken discussion makes me think about testing this with a live chicken coop.
Anyone for a chicken coop game?
Heretic did it better.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Shifty your definition of species is too simplistic, as there exists species like "ring species" where populations within a species can breed with their closest neighbour, but not all populations within the same species can breed with each other. E.g. Larus Gulls and Greenish Warblers.
Example:
Population A can breed with B
B with C
and C with D
However D cannot breed with A, and yet they still form part of the same species.
Additionally, some animals of different species can breed and produce fertile offspring. Lion-Tiger hybrids are an example (females are often fertile), equally Brown Bear-Polar Bear hybrids are also fertile.
Also, what would you call people born with down syndrome then? Are they not homo sapien sapien because they are infertile and cannot interbreed with a person with a full set of chromasomes?
The issue is that the concept of a "species" classification is a man-made one. And whilst some organisms will fit nicely into any one generalised definition we can come up with, nature will always throw us a curve ball and present numerous exceptions to the rule.
For me the only true definition of a "species" that makes sense is a genetic one. But switching to something like that would truly rock the boat.
Example:
Population A can breed with B
B with C
and C with D
However D cannot breed with A, and yet they still form part of the same species.
Additionally, some animals of different species can breed and produce fertile offspring. Lion-Tiger hybrids are an example (females are often fertile), equally Brown Bear-Polar Bear hybrids are also fertile.
Also, what would you call people born with down syndrome then? Are they not homo sapien sapien because they are infertile and cannot interbreed with a person with a full set of chromasomes?
The issue is that the concept of a "species" classification is a man-made one. And whilst some organisms will fit nicely into any one generalised definition we can come up with, nature will always throw us a curve ball and present numerous exceptions to the rule.
For me the only true definition of a "species" that makes sense is a genetic one. But switching to something like that would truly rock the boat.
It's not 'my' definition but biologists'.
I've already said it's no good...It doesn't help answer the question though. We need a definition for a chicken. I suppose if we pick some arbitrary threshold, any organism that deviates more than n% from this official Chicken Pattern can be considered not a chicken, and then we'd have a situation as Tottentranz describes. But how do you pick a genetic pattern and how do you handle organisms of the same 'species' who aren't within that pattern?
The fertile offspring criterion is problematic because of the ring species mentioned above, but also due to habitat considerations. Individuals from different populations might be able to produce fertile offspring, but still be incapable of surviving in each other's natural habitats.
From example, polar and grizzly bears can produce viable and fertile offspring, but a polar bear could not survive in the natural habitat of a grizzly, nor could the latter in that of the former. Do they still belong to the same species? The fertile offspring criterion says they do, but is that really a useful definition if you cannot substitute one for the other?
You might be content to dismiss these issues as minor, and to accept the criterion in light of the many cases for which it is useful, but what about species that do not reproduce sexually? For those, it is utterly useless. Genetic thresholds are tempting, but any such threshold would have to be arbitrary, and could not possibly be universal, for different kinds of organisms exhibit very different amounts of genetic variability. Humans have more than 98% of common DNA with bonobos, yet they are universally considered to be different species. However, known strains of E. coli have less than 40% of common genetic material, and are nevertheless deemed a single species.
After carefully pondering these semantic issues, studying known phenotypic data about the Gallus genus, and extensively comparing its recorded genome, transcriptome and proteome, I have come to the conclusion that what came first were neither chickens nor eggs, but McNuggets.
From example, polar and grizzly bears can produce viable and fertile offspring, but a polar bear could not survive in the natural habitat of a grizzly, nor could the latter in that of the former. Do they still belong to the same species? The fertile offspring criterion says they do, but is that really a useful definition if you cannot substitute one for the other?
You might be content to dismiss these issues as minor, and to accept the criterion in light of the many cases for which it is useful, but what about species that do not reproduce sexually? For those, it is utterly useless. Genetic thresholds are tempting, but any such threshold would have to be arbitrary, and could not possibly be universal, for different kinds of organisms exhibit very different amounts of genetic variability. Humans have more than 98% of common DNA with bonobos, yet they are universally considered to be different species. However, known strains of E. coli have less than 40% of common genetic material, and are nevertheless deemed a single species.
After carefully pondering these semantic issues, studying known phenotypic data about the Gallus genus, and extensively comparing its recorded genome, transcriptome and proteome, I have come to the conclusion that what came first were neither chickens nor eggs, but McNuggets.