<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The lumping of the gulls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nemesisbird.com/2007/02/the-lumping-of-the-gulls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nemesisbird.com/2007/02/the-lumping-of-the-gulls/</link>
	<description>birding in central Pennsylvania</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:57:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: djr</title>
		<link>http://www.nemesisbird.com/2007/02/the-lumping-of-the-gulls/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>djr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drewweber.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/the-lumping-of-the-gulls/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>Certainly, there are &quot;species&quot; that exhibit tremendous differences in physical appearance. The &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://images.google.com/images?q=%22turdus%20poliocephalus%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Island Thrush&lt;/a&gt; comes to mind. External appearance alone is not a reliable indication of how birds (or other living things) are connected to each other.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But as I stated in my own &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://djringer.com/birding/2007/02/19/1000-new-bird-species/&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;post on this topic&lt;/a&gt;, I am not comfortable defining species based on a percentage range. I prefer a more holistic approach, but such an approach is messy, confusing, and necessarily self-contradictory.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Will genetic data eventually be recognized as sort of a trump card, overruling other kinds information? Well, &quot;species&quot; is a rather arbitrary concept after all, and if we wanted to, we could change the definition of species to mean &quot;populations that show greater than a 2 percent difference in their DNA barcodes.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But I for one wouldn&#039;t like it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly, there are &#8220;species&#8221; that exhibit tremendous differences in physical appearance. The <a HREF="http://images.google.com/images?q=%22turdus%20poliocephalus%22&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;oe=UTF-8&#038;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#038;client=firefox-a&#038;sa=N&#038;tab=wi" REL="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/images.google.com/images?q=_22turdus_20poliocephalus_22_038_ie=UTF-8_038_oe=UTF-8_038_rls=org.mozilla_en-US_official_038_client=firefox-a_038_sa=N_038_tab=wi&amp;referer=');">Island Thrush</a> comes to mind. External appearance alone is not a reliable indication of how birds (or other living things) are connected to each other.</p>
<p>But as I stated in my own <a HREF="http://djringer.com/birding/2007/02/19/1000-new-bird-species/" REL="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/djringer.com/birding/2007/02/19/1000-new-bird-species/?referer=');">post on this topic</a>, I am not comfortable defining species based on a percentage range. I prefer a more holistic approach, but such an approach is messy, confusing, and necessarily self-contradictory.</p>
<p>Will genetic data eventually be recognized as sort of a trump card, overruling other kinds information? Well, &#8220;species&#8221; is a rather arbitrary concept after all, and if we wanted to, we could change the definition of species to mean &#8220;populations that show greater than a 2 percent difference in their DNA barcodes.&#8221;</p>
<p>But I for one wouldn&#8217;t like it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
