• billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Maybe this is more of philosophical question, but at some point the line to an organism being a new species is crossed and the parent would be a different species than the offspring right? Or is that line a lot fuzzier? I understand “new species” is very much a human nomenclature and construct so this might just be a moot point.

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Idk the biological definition for species.

      In my personal one, 2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species. Which means the offspring could theoretically breed with its parents.

      Under this definition, a being can belong to multiple species.

      So if A is the parent of B, and B the parent of C (because of evolution):

      If B is similar enough to both A and C. But C is different enough from A, then B would be of both species A and C, like an intermediate between both species.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m pretty sure “can produce fertile offspring with each other” is a pretty common definition of a species. At least I’ve seen it before.

        “Fertile” is key here, because while donkeys and horses can produce offspring (mules), mules are infertile, so donkeys and horses are different species.

        So pretty much yes: While no single generation will differ enough from its parents to be a new species (at least very rarely), once you move a couple thousand generations, you can have a new species. However the point at which the new species “came into being” is very fuzzy.