site banner

Friday Fun Thread for December 9, 2022

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I know this theory will sound retarded, but I don’t think Bonobos are a real species. Is there any biological basis to their classification? Apparently they can freely interbreed with Chimps, and I believe their status as a separate famously pacifist, feminist, homosexual species is propaganda

Where you draw the line at what is the same species or is not the same species is rather arbitrary. One definition is that two animals are not the same species if they cannot have fertile offspring; but there are lots of animals like that that we happily classify as different species, like lions and tigers. I think the more commonly used definition is that two animals are different species if they do not mate in the wild. And as I understand it, bonobos and chimpanzees very rarely mate in the wild.

Indeed. By the nature of evolution, closely related species blur at the edges. Interfertility remains the main criterion to distinguish species, but it's neither binary (there are many degrees of non-interfertility: won't mate > will mate but not conceive > will conceive but not carry to term > hybrids are born malformed > hybrids are healthy but sterile > hybrids are fertile but have lower fitness) nor transitive (see ring species, where A is interfertile with B and B with C, but C is not interfertile with A). Besides, most species are named on morphological or genetical grounds, because checking interfertility with their relatives would be impractical. And of course many species are exclusively asexual and do not mate at all -- just look at the mess that is bacterial taxonomy, where populations of a single "species" can be more genetically diverse than mammals and fish.