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.
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.
2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species.
This is a very incomplete definition though. For example is every mule a different species or not a species at all? Isn’t a horse also capable of producing children of different “species”? I understand that mules might not be considered a species because they’re sterile. But this ant isn’t reproducing sexually either.
She was essentially cloning males from another species.
The “species” classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.
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.
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.
This is a very incomplete definition though. For example is every mule a different species or not a species at all? Isn’t a horse also capable of producing children of different “species”? I understand that mules might not be considered a species because they’re sterile. But this ant isn’t reproducing sexually either.
The “species” classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.