- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,804
- 52,558
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Thus the Equus in the OP are still Equus.
Coyotes wouldn't need to board the Ark, would they?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thus the Equus in the OP are still Equus.The genus never changes.
Coyotes wouldn't need to board the Ark, would they?Neither - it's just a retelling of an ancient morality tale.
Did someone suggest they weren't?Thus the Equus in the OP are still Equus.
They couldn't, it being fiction and all.Coyotes wouldn't need to board the Ark, would they?
I think you know what I meant.They couldn't, it being fiction and all.
If there are no species in a genus, it is extinct, defunct. How could subspecies return if there are no species to give rise to them?If you remove all subspecies from a Genus, except the top Genus, will all the subspecies eventually return?
Genera are divided into species. It's species that have sub-species. I have no idea what you mean by the "top genus."I think you know what I meant.
If you remove all subspecies from a Genus, except the top Genus, will all the subspecies eventually return?
I'll make this into a challenge thread.I have no idea what you mean by the "top genus."
Top dog ... top of the gene pool ... Canis lepophagus.And the challenge is trying to figure out what you mean by "top genus?"
Have a nice day.Canis lepophagus is a species.
Exactly what we've been saying all along... with genus equaling kind of course.The genus never changes. Species have occasionally been misattributed to the wrong genus, but evolution doesn't change the genus.
Whether you like it or not, it's the only written history we have... everything else is speculation.Neither - it's just a retelling of an ancient morality tale.
Exactly what we've been saying all along... with genus equaling kind of course.
So, for example, one shrewdness might assign "Panthera" to one set of species, while another shrewdness might assign a different name to the same set?The assignment of a genus to biological groups is arbitrary though.
So, for example, one shrewdness might assign "Panthera" to one set of species, while another shrewdness might assign a different name to the same set?
Frankly I don't think they know what they're doing.I'm saying the choosing of the "set" itself is arbitrary.
We only equated kind to genus to appease your persistence on a scientific-type definition. We’ll gladly go back to just using kind in the discussions now.That kinda throws a monkey-wrench into your "kind = genus" claim.
We only equated kind to genus to appease your persistence on a scientific-type definition. We’ll gladly go back to just using kind in the discussions now.
You’ve claimed taxonomic classifications to be everything from fuzzy to artificial classifications that aren't actually real in nature, so what’s the difference?Given that "kind" appears to be meaningless in these discussions, you might as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?