I think of it in the same way that I think of the Ideal gas model. It works fine, provided the appropriate context. But more sophisticated equations are needed if & when the context warrants it. Physicists have no problem with this approach to rationalizing the natural world in a way that enables practical applications, without forgetting the underlying complexities that are really at play.
So I think it's fine to make hypotheses and predictions based on the "Ideal Species Model", where species exist as natural entities with only minimally "fuzzy" boundaries, as a sort of first-order assumption. But when those hypotheses and predictions don't pan out, then one of the first things to examine is the assumption of "ISM" applicability (i.e., whether the "fuzzy" zones are proportionally more significant, or even dominant).
In my world, as an "alpha-taxonomist", I often encounter cases where the ISM breaks down. But I suspect that, in the majority of cases where the notion of "species" is applied, the ISM serves the needs adequately.
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Zander [mailto:Richard.Zander@mobot.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:24 AM To: Richard Pyle; tdwg@lists.tdwg.org; Taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [tdwg] Semantic Web: What is a species?
This is a good balance between scientific realism and total subjectivity, but then what is the difference between treating something as real for pragmatic purposes though harboring reservations, and thinking it is real with no reservations? Feedback from the great Out There when you are wrong?
Richard H. Zander Voice: 314-577-0276 Missouri Botanical Garden PO Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA richard.zander@mobot.org Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
-----Original Message----- From: taxacom-bounces@mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces@mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 6:55 PM To: tdwg@lists.tdwg.org; Taxacom@mailman.nhm.ku.edu Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [tdwg] Semantic Web: What is a species?
How do others think of species?
I do not think that species are any more "real" than subspecies, genera, and families. I believe all of these things are abstract notions representing aggregate sets of individual organisms, defined and labelled by humans in a way that allows us to communicate with each other with some degree of efficiency (though certainly not perfect efficiency).
Having said that, I think it is highly practical in many cases to treat units of "species" as though they were cohesive, singular, "real" entities that exist in nature (within a given slice of geologic time) independantly of human interpretations, because doing so also facilitates communication. This is particularly true in cases characterized by realtively broad periods/populations of phenetic and/or genetic stasis, homogeneity and consistency, punctuated by relatively small periods/populations of phenetic and/or genetic divergence, heterogeneity and spectral forms. I think the dangers and problems (nomenclatural instability, poorly supported hypotheses, confusing and conflicting lines of evidence) are most evident when people attempt to apply assumptions based on the "reality" of species to cases that are not so characterized.