Do you agree with these statements?

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think he's asking if the taxonomic species name (Equus grevy, Equus quagga, Equus zebra) is the same after the modifications.

And that would be typical of AV to be more concerned with what designation we arbitrarily give it than with the properties of the thing itself.

Remember what he said about Pluto?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And that would be typical of AV to be more concerned with what designation we arbitrarily give it than with the properties of the thing itself.
Still waiting.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yup -- with emphasis on the genus.
I'm no expert in taxonomy, but I doubt the genus would change unless the zebra descendant species lineage became so different from the generic horse that it justified a wholesale restructuring of the taxonomy up to the level of Order. We'd have to be taxonomising for millions of years to reach that point.

Cetaceans might be an example of the sort of thing that would be needed - they're members of the Order Artiodactyla (ungulates), Suborder Whippomorpha (hippos & cetaceans), Infraorder Cetacea.

Biological taxonomy is just a naming convention to represent relationships in the evolutionary hierarchy; there's nothing to prevent additions or extensions to the nomenclature if it's thought necessary.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm no expert in taxonomy, but I doubt the genus would change unless the zebra descendant species lineage became so different from the generic horse that it justified a wholesale restructuring of the taxonomy up to the level of Order.
We'll never know until the holder of this apocryphal truth (Kylie) tells us.

Until then, we can speculate until the cows come home.

And in the speculation department, I submit they are still zebras.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yup -- with emphasis on the genus.

There are several different species of zebra extant today, all in the genus Equus.

E. grevyi
E. quagga
E. zebra

You can assume any of those as the species being talked about.

What is the name of the species they'd evolve into after about ten thousand generations? Well, a female zebra can become pregnant at age 1, but usually don't get pregnant until they are 2. They become fully reproductively mature at age 4. So let's say the average generation length for a zebra population is three years, splitting it in the middle.

So, if you want to wait 30,000 years and ask the scientists of the future what name they decide to call our modern zebras have evolved into after 10,000 generations or so, feel free. If you prefer to not wait, please feel free to call them E. futura. I, on the other hand, realise that what we decide to call them doesn't make any difference to the point that I am making with my OP.

Would you care to explain WHY you think the arbitrary name we give to these future zebra-relatives makes any difference at all?
 
Upvote 0