- NEW!
by angel_of_mercy on June 2nd, 2008
Are Puerto Ricans required to learn English?
by Answerbag Staff on May 25th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Are tesol&tefol only for teaching or can anyone take this course?
by Answerbag Staff on May 5th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
How can children learn the english language?
by Answerbag Staff on March 11th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Do you like old English? Why or why not?
by A on April 22nd, 2012
| 1 person likes this
So, what is the correct usage of the words "grey" and "gray"? I've looked it up and I've had conflicting answers on such a simple issue.
by ~*Araya*~ on April 19th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading I'm confused about the word "species". Take bears for example. Are polar bears a species of bear? or is it all bears that are the species?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Incorrect. Bears as a whole are a family of animals. Polar bear is a specific species (Ursus maritimus), grizzlies are another species (Ursus arctos horribilis) and so on.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 17th, 2008
whoops. i stand corrected - thanks :-)
by angel_of_mercy on September 18th, 2008
:-) No problem
by Aquatic Eagle on September 18th, 2008
NOUN:
pl. species
1. Biology
1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See Table at taxonomy.
2. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
2. Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
angel or mercy you were right.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
How so? It's not really a matter of debate, polar bears are a separate species from grizzly bears (which are a subspecies of brown bears) and black bears.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Black_Bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
by Aquatic Eagle on September 18th, 2008
Because one cannot change a definition. You cannot change the rules as you go along. What purpose would changing definitions serve?
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
What exactly have I changed? Who is changing any rules?
by Aquatic Eagle on September 18th, 2008
Unless I am missing something you are saying bears belong to different species. 1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See Table at taxonomy. I may be mistake but are not Polar bears and black bears the same sub genus? If i am wrong please correct me.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
No, you are not missing the fact that I am saying that different bears (not all) belong to different species as I have said that repeatedly.
.
I cannot find any information that says that polar bears or black bears have a sub-genus as not all animals are required to have a "sub" classification at every level. A good example would be humans. Homo sapiens is a species but does not have a sub-species. Even if the polar bears and black bears are of the same sub-genus (which again, I can find no evidence of anywhere), that doesn't have anything to do with what we are debating. We are debating whether or not polar bears, black bears and brown bears are different species. They are. It's not my opinion, it's a fact that can be researched quite easily. Google the question and the same answer pops up multiple times.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 18th, 2008
The reason Homo Sapiens do not have a sub-genus is because none exist. There are no other humans, simple. You say "Even if the polar bears and black bears are of the same sub-genus (which again, I can find no evidence of anywhere), that doesn't have anything to do with what we are debating. We are debating whether or not polar bears, black bears and brown bears are different species." You are debating sub-species then not species since they are all bears. Then you say there is a lot of info on it yet you admit you cannot find it. Sorry not trying to mock you but you are not making sense. Again, unless I am missing something.
by no_one_special on September 18th, 2008
hmm. lol this could be a bit confusing.
by angel_of_mercy on September 18th, 2008
Wow. You're right angel_of_mercy, this is really starting to hurt my head.
.
"The reason Homo Sapiens do not have a sub-genus is because none exist. There are no other humans, simple."
Yes, I just said that above, thanks for paying attention because that was my point.
.
"You are debating sub-species then not species since they are all bears."
No, because as I have said REPEATEDLY and backed up with sources, bears as a whole are NOT A SPECIES. Do you also think that all fish are the same species? THEY AREN'T. I don't know how to make it clearer to you that bears are not a species, they are a group of different species called a genus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursus_(genus)
by Aquatic Eagle on September 19th, 2008
"Then you say there is a lot of info on it yet you admit you cannot find it."
Ok, please stay with me. You are combining two completely separate sentences of mine into one. I said above that "I cannot find any information that says that polar bears or black bears have a sub-genus as not all animals are required to have a "sub" classification at every level." This was to refute what you said, "I may be mistake but are not Polar bears and black bears the same sub genus?"
Then I said "We are debating whether or not polar bears, black bears and brown bears are different species. They are. It's not my opinion, it's a fact that can be researched quite easily."
These are two completely separate statements. If you want to quote or paraphrase someone, you need to do it accurately.
.
"Again, unless I am missing something."
Yes, you are very much missing lots of things and I don't know how to make my point any clearer.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 19th, 2008
*bangs head against wall*
by Aquatic Eagle on September 19th, 2008
I lol'ed.
by Zebulon on September 19th, 2008
@ Scienceoverignorance So is this correct? KINGDOM: Animalia PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Mammalia ORDER: Carnivora FAMILY: Ursidae GENUS SPECIES: Ursus (bear) maritimus (sea)... Sorry been MIA for a bit.
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2008
Yes, that is correct. As you can see by your own comment, polar bears (ursus maritimus) are not the same species as other bears.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 24th, 2008
I am sorry if you took it as if I was adamant about the whole thing. I just did not find anything to support either of our positions in a concrete manner. The more I look up things relating to this, the more it seems the term "species" is used loosely, it has a somewhat broad application still. OK so then "maritimus" would be the sub-species?
by no_one_special on September 24th, 2008
No. No. No. No. To quote your own comment: "GENUS SPECIES: Ursus (bear) maritimus (sea)"
As in, Genus: Ursus, Species: maritimus
I really don't know how you couldn't find anything to support what I was saying above as I provided many links to support it. Even you provided something to support what I was saying. I don't know where you're seeing species used "loosely". I'm kinda hoping that this is all a joke because I really am not sure what to think of this whole conversation.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 25th, 2008
Ursus means bear so then Maritimus must mean species since other bears do not have the Maritimus. Correct me please.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
OK wait so species is just a variation of the Genus. The same kind just a more pronounced variation, and this is what separates them into species. Is this correct?
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
I'm not sure how much strength I have left to correct you. Yes, maritimus is the species, as I have said repeatedly. Species is a more specific level below genus. Usually the biggest difference between two biological species is the inability to mate successfully.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
OK got it. A Species is an organism belonging to the same family with more pronounced gene changes. Why didn't you just say that?
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
I don't know what to say...I really don't. Wow.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
Let me clarify, since I admit I appears as if you had not stated that before. I do apologize for that. However, remember why the difference arose when I introduced the dictionary definition of "species" so that is how we got here. I understand how you define it and why, which is fine. I wanted you to address my comment on Sep, 18 2008 at 02:09 PM because if you read the definition if conflicts with what you stated. Then you said, " I cannot find any information that says that polar bears or black bears have a sub-genus as not all animals are required to have a "sub" classification at every level."... Do you see where the confusion was on both sides. Perhaps more on my side but again I was not adamnt.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
No, I don't understand the confusion because I have not changed any of my points and nothing I have said conflicts with your posted definition. Not one bit. I haven't understood this whole time where your confusion comes from. I don't know how many times I have answered the same question with the same answer and provided support for it.
.
Please explain to me how what I have said conflicts with the definition that you posted. And by the way, I have not posted MY definition of species but have discussed THE definitions of species as they are accepted scientifically. I'm not making this stuff up out of opinion.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. This is where we misunderstood or at least I did, the interbreeding. Also I was not debating you, look at my comments, I was simply seeking clarification.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
What's to misunderstand? What did I say that conflicted with the interbreeding part?
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
That species are not able to successfully interbreed.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
Two different species aren't able to interbreed successfully, as I said above. Your definition that you JUST posted says that species is "a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding." That means that a species is a group of similar organisms that are capable of interbreeding. What I said is that organisms are normally considered separate species when they CAN'T interbreed.
My quote: "Usually the biggest difference between two biological species is the inability to mate successfully."
How is what I said ANY different from what you just posted?
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
I didn't just post it, it was from Sep, 18 2008 at 02:09 PM on this very thread. See here "A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding." The part were I saw a problem was in, "consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding." Then when I read "Usually the biggest difference between two biological species is the inability to mate successfully." Now do you see where I was coming from? I am not saying your are wrong, just that it got slightly confusing.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
Yes, but you just REposted it tonight. I wasn't saying that you hadn't posted it previously, I was emphasizing the JUST because you didn't seem to understand your own definition. Okay, are you clear on it now? Because the definition you provided is saying that A (one) species includes organisms that can interbreed and the definition that I provided is saying the same thing; that two animals of different species cannot interbreed. I hope you aren't confused on that anymore because I'm not sure how to explain it any further.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
The definition I posted does appear to conflict with yours. I am not saying my definition is more valid than yours. I am simply saying the appear to conflict and that is where the confusion started. One says they can interbreed the other says they cannot successfully. I guess the key word is "successfully" It appears like they are not in harmony.I can see what your position is though.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
No. One says that organisms in the SAME species CAN interbreed and the other addresses the other end of the same meaning; that organisms in DIFFERENT species CANNOT interbreed. The first definition is implying the second definition because it SHOULD go without saying and vice versa. Ask anyone to read this and I guarantee that they will agree that these two definitions do NOT conflict with each but support each other.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
As an example of your definition, one domestic cat CAN interbreed with another domestic cat. As an example of the definition I provided, a domestic cat CANNOT interbreed with a domestic dog.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
What about a horse and Donkey?
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
Good question. Those ARE two separate species. They can reproduce and have a mule as offspring. They are still separate species though because they don't reproduce successfully. The mule that is produced is sterile 99% of the time. In order for the reproduction to be considered successful, the offspring have to survive after birth AND have the ability to reproduce their own offspring, which the mule cannot. Therefore, since the mule is sterile and is not considered successful offspring, the horse and donkey are still separate species. This is not my definition, this is the explanation of the definition of a biological species.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
Sounds good enough to me. Thanks again.
by no_one_special on September 26th, 2008
So...and I know this is probably going to open up this ridiculously huge can of worms again...do you understand now that bears are not all the same species?
by Aquatic Eagle on September 26th, 2008
To understand that we must conclude that they could not interbreed successfully, would we not?
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2008
After all of this...I can only HOPE that we agree that DIFFERENT species cannot interbreed with each other successfully. I know I'm asking a lot though.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 28th, 2008
I do not have that information. I have heard of Tigers and Lions interbreeding successfully. But I am not sure. Do you happen to know any additional info on that? I am not playing devils advocate but I just am unsure. Think about it, supposing that a polar bear and a grizzly were able to interbreed successfully then they would they would be "different species" interbreeding, would they not? So you see why I am hesitant? Not because I am trying to play devils advocate, just that I do not have that info.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2008
According to the information I can find, ligers are pretty much 99% of the time sterile, like the mules we talked about. The only times they have been able to reproduce were with a lion but not with another liger. So then ligers have not been observed mating together successfully. They are considered hybrids of tigers and lions, not their own species.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 28th, 2008
Oh thanks! Very interesting.
by no_one_special on September 28th, 2008
lol. i have been following this conversation with interest and i'm glad you've managed to come to a conclusion.
Although, I would like to point out that there are different variations on the meaning of species - there are about 10 variations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) since scientists don't seem to be able to agree on a proper definition either, which mean we were both technically correct.
I believe this is my definition
Biological / Isolation species
A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. << bears are a "population" and can interbreed, right? ergo - species :-D
has been interesting though :-) thanks
by angel_of_mercy on September 29th, 2008
Yeah, I have been using the biological definition of species as that is the most commonly used one.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 29th, 2008
Wow very interesting. You are an angel of mercy! Thank you too scienceover.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
I apologize that I did not state at the very beginning that the definition I was using is the biological definition. I used that definition because it is the definition used most by scientists when classifying organisms.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 29th, 2008
No problem scienceover.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
He was being sarcastic. There might be many meanings of the word species, but in the sense used by scientists, there is one definition. There are some problems, as with most definition, for example with ring species. The definition is that ring species aren´t different species, altough they cannot interbreed directly. But this is again semantics, and I don´t see why you think that angel´s comment somehow should have covered your ignorance.
by 773491 on September 29th, 2008
Perhaps he was being sarcastic. No matter, it does show where I was coming from and why the confusion. I was not being adamant and I did understand varying definitions. Thats why I had posed questions. Definitions are very important. At least that we understand which ones we are using so that we can discuss intelligently.
by no_one_special on September 29th, 2008
No it has nothing to do with your confusion. You never once stated that you were confused about the definition because you were aware of several definitions. You said that the reason you were confused was that you and I had posted different definitions when, in fact, we hadn't. We had only posted different views of the same definition. To state it again; I posted that organisms of DIFFERENT species CANNOT interbreed. You posted that organisms of the SAME species CAN interbreed. These both mean the same thing but you have still failed to understand this. Now, this is not the same thing as if you had claimed that I was using the biological definition of species and you were using say, the morphological definition of species. Then you could blame the confusion on differing definitions. As it stands though, you cannot because we did not have different definitions, just different levels of comprehension.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 30th, 2008
hey... so i was right in the first place then. the same species can interbreed... bears interbreed, so they are a species. as i have said.
all this and i was right.
by angel_of_mercy on September 30th, 2008
No, not as the word "species" is being used. When talking about interbreeding, you would have to use the biological definition. "Bears" cannot be used to describe a species but a family. Don't believe me, try to get a polar bear and a panda bear to reproduce. Good luck.
by Aquatic Eagle on September 30th, 2008
@scienceover. My comment was in response to 77. I stumbled on varying definitions of the word species in a previous encounter with him but I cant find it anymore to save my life. True I did not state that in the beginning so that is why it sounds odd. @angelofmercy. You may be correct, but it depends on which definition is used.
by no_one_special on September 30th, 2008
hmm... i didn't think about panda's. ok. i conceed. i have no choice really lol. :-) at least with the biological definition. lol
oh well - you learn something new every day :-)
by angel_of_mercy on October 1st, 2008
For further info on this look at answer 2out of 6 on this thread Iwnit has some pretty interesting info that does sound like you were correct in the first place. But again it depends on how and who defines species.
by no_one_special on October 1st, 2008
by Aquatic Eagle on June 26th, 2010