> No, that would be far too easy :) The rule isn't so much 'can they?',
> but 'do they?' Which is always iffy where the ranges don't overlap
> anyway. Hence the genetic analysis; if the gene pools are clearly
> distinct you can call them separate species, even if (like, say, wolves
> and coyotes) they can produce fertile offspring with each other.
...and the biological species concept doesn't apply to the majority of living things anyway. Bacteria, fungi etc - you can't cross them to see if they reproduce in the same way.
When big furry animals of different species *do* breed, then you pull out the argument, "but look at them, they're different. They've even got different names and everything."
All very hazy indeed.
> Being defined by myth, I suspect its somewhat different in Glorantha.
Glorantha? Wassat?
Sam.
p.s. Bacteria hsunchen?
Powered by hypermail