rw wrote in message ...

While there's been a long history of debate about the definition
(the "species problem" in biology), few if any serious biologists would
deny that species are objective, concrete phenomena. This greatly
constrains the possible definitions of "species."

There is a spectrum of opinion.

Debate and opinion, yet the definition is concrete and objective?
That's a non-sequiter for me.

On the far right, so to speak, are people
like Jon who insist on the most rigid and absolute definiton

Yep, I'm a Lumper with a capital L.

This leads to absurdities, like the lions and tigers example.

No more absurd than saying a chihuahua is the same species as a
great dane. As I understand it, it takes a good specialist to be
able to correctly identify a lion skeleton from a tiger skeleton.
Surface coloration and a little different hair growth is hardly
ground for speciation -- else we get back to my human and dog
examples. I'd be glad to declare them subspecies -- like cutts
are to rainbows, but I see no concrete scientific reason to say
they are true species.

The truth is in the middle. Species are "real," but pinning them down with
a simple definition is hard.

Ahh, but we have concrete and objective definitions, don't we?

Fortunately, the definition of "species" isn't left to armchair
taxonomists.

As Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker: "How painfully true is your remark that
no one has hardly the right to examine the question of species who has not
minutely described many."

Ahh yes, we must uphold the high priesthood of rationalism, the
ivory tower scientists. Us laity just can't grasp the reasoning
it takes to distinguish species. We should just blindy follow
and believe our priests, and if we did the world would be a much
better place. Everything they say is true -- how dare we question
it. If we do, they'll just laugh and call our ideas absurd, or
tell us not to try to be armchair priests.

Jon.