Added this comment from 172.192.160.124, which was included in an edit summary box: --Lexor|Talk 01:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2004-05-16T01:14:00.000Z","author":"Lexor","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lexor-2004-05-16T01:14:00.000Z-Comment_in_edit_summary_box","replies":[]}}-->
Copied from discussion on talk pages between Alan Peakall and Slrubenstein
Chronospecies is a current candidate on Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it here. --Fenice 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-01-04T17:48:00.000Z","author":"Fenice","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fenice-2006-01-04T17:48:00.000Z-Wikipedia:Science_collaboration_of_the_week","replies":[]}}-->
A few minutes ago, the article suggested that microspecies do neither meiosis or mitosis. This, I think, is foolishness, as all organisms do mitosis. I have changed it, but if some expert of microspecies disagrees, go ahead and change it back. --Pjvpjv 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-13T14:26:00.000Z","author":"Pjvpjv","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pjvpjv-2006-07-13T14:26:00.000Z-Mitosis_and_Meiosis_in_microspecies","replies":[]}}-->
Apparently someone reverted that change. I independently noticed this just now (03:23, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)) and am making the same correction again as Pjv's change was correct. The "see also" in the section refers to the same phenomenon and says nothing about lack of mitosis either. If someone is absolutely positive that certain organisms reproduce using neither meiosis nor mitosis, they should either say so in this discussion or add a citation before changing the line back.
Aristotle, in his Categoriae, uses "genus" and "species" in a nonbiological sense more closely related to the terms generic and specific. Perhaps mention of this would be appropriate, if only for its etymological ramifications: the meaning of the word "species" grew more specific as time went on. - Jrn 16:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees interbred until 4 million years ago: NOT one million years ago as the text says. The pre-humans living one million years ago are called Homo erectus (“upright man”). Except for a distinctive head they looked very similar to us. They had stone tools, hunted big game, and it was only a matter of time before they tamed fire. To claim that these interbred with chimps and had fertile offspring is simply not credible!
2007-03-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.151.160 (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-03-27T12:31:00.000Z","author":"81.233.151.160","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.233.151.160-2007-03-27T12:31:00.000Z-Past_interbreedability","replies":["c-Pengo-2007-03-27T12:52:00.000Z-81.233.151.160-2007-03-27T12:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
It is written in the second paragraph following the headline “Difficulties in defining ‘species’ for extinct organisms”. However, I am not sure about the exact time of interbreeding. It might had stopped 4.2 million years ago because fertile offspring was no longer possible.
2007-03-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Sorry, I read it carelessly!
2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
This section is too long compared with the rest of the article and expands on content earlier in the article. I suggest "The isolation species concept in more detail" should be moved to a separate article and the Species article should link to it. As far as I can see from the "history" page, section "The isolation species concept in more detail" was added by Artat. It would be nice if Artat could create the new article, so that the history pages give him / her credit for the content.Philcha 14:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-03-14T14:05:00.000Z","author":"Philcha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philcha-2007-03-14T14:05:00.000Z-Section_\"The_isolation_species_concept_in_more_detail\"","replies":[]}}-->
I agree. There is a page for reproductive isolation that could be improved and expanded. It would take a lot of this out of the article, and allow the Species article to keep its focus. Oeft 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-23T13:46:00.000Z","author":"Oeft","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oeft-2007-04-23T13:46:00.000Z-Section_\"The_isolation_species_concept_in_more_detail\"","replies":[]}}-->
Howdy Y'all I am a native Texan and have grown up fishing in creeks and rivers. We have an animal called a nutrea that I don't know much about and would like to gain more information. I was unable to find any articles about nutreas on the cite, so I'm wondering if any other areas have them. Some people call them river rats, and they remind me of beavers, only creepier. It would be great to have any information. Thanks Y'all!
I removed the section about "evolution is radically accelerated", There are so many errors in this paragraph, I don't think they can be fixed. 203.143.238.107 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-15T03:57:00.000Z","author":"203.143.238.107","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-203.143.238.107-2007-05-15T03:57:00.000Z-Radically_accelerated_evolution","replies":[]}}-->
"In recent years we have witnessed the drastic reduction in the size of breeding populations and the geographical range of many large mammals. In earlier times it was assumed that every species existed in at least a few thousand living individuals, except very rare relic, isolated groups. In the present, many well know mammal and bird species are so stressed by habitat loss, and other effects of the modern world, that only a very few breeding males may contribute the genetic material to a small number of breeding females. In these highly stressed conditions, the likelihood of change is very much greater. Mammals may become smaller, have darker fur, more stripes, more cautious behavior, even over time learn to co-exist with the human world. Very likely, evolution is radically accelerated, and we are only beginning to notice it. It is possible that this severe stress is essential to the creation of new species, and may have been a prime factor throughout biological history, from other population reducing influences."
I started to edit the section on species inflation contributed by User:BanyanTree : original, my edits. However on closer scrutiny the section (and the source article in the Economist) lacked any substantial claims. For example, there were no specific claims of "species inflation" except for the polar bear and brown bear, which have always been classified as a separate species (as far as i know anyway); and the counter example of the Jamaican raccoon which is somewhat meaningless because the situation would have been the same if it were found to be the same subspecies as found in Northern America. So I deleted the section entirely. That's not to say Wikipedia shouldn't have have anything on this perceived trend, but we should start with something more substantial than an editorial piece. Sorry to have to delete it, BanyanTree. —Pengo 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-24T04:49:00.000Z","author":"Pengo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pengo-2007-05-24T04:49:00.000Z-Species_inflation","replies":["c-BanyanTree-2007-05-24T08:48:00.000Z-Pengo-2007-05-24T04:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Perhaps 70% of this article overlaps with species problem. This article is also currently 44KB, which is longer than the ~30KB normally recommended. I have tagged several sections dealing with the question of how to define a species for merger with the other article. That will move out a considerable amount of material; a brief summary should be left behind here. Another problem is that both articles have history sections. The history of the concept of "species" is pretty much the same thing as the history of the definition of "species". Given the amount of material, it might be best to spawn a third article dedicated to this topic. -- Beland 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-18T20:21:00.000Z","author":"Beland","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Beland-2007-05-18T20:21:00.000Z-Article_length_and_species_problem","replies":["c-Pengo-2007-11-10T05:00:00.000Z-Beland-2007-05-18T20:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
The definition I learned in high school (I know, I've set myself up to be wrong already) was: two animals are the same species if they can produce fertile offspring. Was that wrong/has it changed?--BlackGriffen (1) That definition can only apply to sexually reproducing species (how do you determine whether or not two bacteria, each of which can reproduce alone by splitting, can "interbreed"?) (2) Even among higher species, the lines aren't that sharp. There are severals "sets" of species, such as arctic seabirds, where species A can and does interbreed with B, and B with C, and C with D...but A cannot interbreed with D. So where do you draw that line? --LDC
Another problem with the definition is that there are well-accepted 'species' that can produce fertile offspring, but generally do not in nature. For instance grizzlies and polar bears breed successfully in zoos. Conversely there are animals which we accept as the same species even though they obviously cannot interbreed. For instance no matter how much a Great Dane and Pekinese may want otherwise, physical mechanics will be a problem. Yet both are dogs. --BJT
I think it would clarify things to introduce a section outlining the three common ways in which "species" is used today. Perhaps something like:
Each of these three ways of defining a species is useful, each has its weaknesses, and the continuing use of all three helps highlight the underlying fact that the natural world consists of humps and subtle gradients which the straight lines and boxes of categorisation schemes can only render imperfectly.
Errr .... that last bit is a bit flowery, but you get the idea. I'm reluctant to go chopping up an article that is coherent and reads well as it stands, but at present one must read between the lines to understand that 'species' is as variable and as slippery a concept as it is. Putting some of the more common current definitions into dot point form would help, I think. Tannin
These are definitely contrasts that should be made. And please don't worry about chopping up the article. I think the article needs massive reconstruction anyway. Most of the history of taxonomy stuff probably belongs in another article, as does the not insignificant summary of how evolution is supposed to work. --Ryguasu 20:58 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Is it even possible to provide a scientifically valid way of determining why animal A and animal B are of different species? It seems to me the different methodologies are insufficient for all types of life, and consequently the only way we can tell a species is different is by seeing a species that either is human or isn't (ie we can tell that another animal is human because we ourselves are human). However that method is hardly scientific. Piepants 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Piepants__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-14T01:56:00.000Z","author":"Piepants","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Piepants-2006-04-14T01:56:00.000Z-Definition","replies":["c-Slrubenstein-2006-04-14T16:59:00.000Z-Piepants-2006-04-14T01:56:00.000Z","c-Slrubenstein-2006-06-07T13:50:00.000Z-Piepants-2006-04-14T01:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
There are roughly 25 definitions of species in the current literature. I have a document that lists them all (based on Mayden), gives citations, and I would be happy to offer it for someone to put into this article. It is an older version appendix to a book on species concepts under review now.
I find this article confused and incomplete, and relies on some questionable interpretations of the history of species concepts made by biologists themselves (mostly Mayr and Simpson). While it may represent the "textbook" view popular in the field, it is false. People did not think species had essences prior to Darwin. In fact species essentialism postdates the Origin by 30 years. Aristotle was neither a fixist (which began with John Ray) nor a transmutationist (which began with Pierre Maupertuis). Nor do types and "typological thinking" appear to involve essences, and the use of morphological "definitions" doesn't mean that the species concepts used by the taxonomists (including Darwin!) were essentialists. John Wilkins 11:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-20T11:27:00.000Z","author":"John Wilkins","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Wilkins-2006-09-20T11:27:00.000Z-Definition","replies":["c-Wikiality123-2007-05-06T15:24:00.000Z-John_Wilkins-2006-09-20T11:27:00.000Z","c-John_Wilkins-2007-11-14T00:20:00.000Z-John_Wilkins-2006-09-20T11:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
I'm not going to argue with the above, and just say how I would like to see this article arranged. I'd love to see an article Definitions of species, with the 25 definitions John Wilkins mentioned above, and have it summarized in this article. The introduction to species should start with a textbook definition, with some hint as to the variety of other definitions (which I think it does reasonably well already). Likewise, the history of the changing meanings should stay in Species problem (or perhaps narrowing the article to just the history of the term, which it is already really). So basically three articles, with room for a forth:
And it's a lot of work, even just to get all the stuff that needs to be moved into "Species problem" moved there. So I'll stop. —Pengo 06:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-11-14T06:12:00.000Z","author":"Pengo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pengo-2007-11-14T06:12:00.000Z-Definition","replies":[]}}-->
I could rework an article I published in Reports of the NCSE for the definitions piece, and I could do a historical piece as well (the "species problem" arose in 1904 or a bit before, prior to that it was the "species question" - i.e., the origins of species). But not right now. John Wilkins 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-11-15T00:20:00.000Z","author":"John Wilkins","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Wilkins-2007-11-15T00:20:00.000Z-Definition","replies":[]}}-->
You can't proove a negative! Further all identifications, save the original one, are matters of opinion.Osborne (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-22T18:34:00.000Z","author":"Osborne","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Osborne-2008-05-22T18:34:00.000Z-Definition","replies":[]}}-->
Already added this entry: At present, organisations as the Global Taxonomy Initiative, the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy and the Census of Marine Life[1] (the latter only for marine organisms) are trying to improve taxonomy and implement previously undiscovered species to the taxonomy system.
will add a (much needed) bar chart soon. KVDP (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-28T13:54:00.000Z","author":"KVDP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KVDP-2009-10-28T13:54:00.000Z-Undiscovered_species","replies":[]}}-->
I'm removing the following bit of metaphysics:
While this is a valid point, it has nothing to do with species in particular. You can ask the same questions about just about any scientific concept, if not just about every concept whatsoever. The only reason this should stay is if it ties in to a larger argument or controversy about species. --Ryguasu 20:58 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
I have removed a paragraph that seems out of place, and has no citations; I include it here:
Life Support Species: Many species display distinct adaptations to environmental extreme, as they are able to grow and reproduce under such conditions as drought, desertification, flood, soil toxicity, soil sailinity among them a number already provide source of food, materials and energy to humans, livestock and other animals, are of considerable potential benefit to man. and these are known as Life support species. As such they mutually include keystone species since these hold the key to the integrity of landscapes which include both the diversity of living biota and the human communities. Both ecological and socio-economic species are Life support species.
First, this seems to be discussing an ecology/conservation concept used primarily by ethnobotanists, only marginally related to the topic of THIS article, which focuses on species as a taxonomic unit. As such, I question whether it belongs here at all. If it has only appeared in the context of plant ecology and conservation, and has no broader recognition within the scientific community, then perhaps the appropriate articles for it are those related to conservation biology, such as the article Keystone species.
Second, if other editors believe it should be retained (even if moved elsewhere), it needs to have its grammar cleaned up AND it absolutely must be accompanied with citations. Who first coined the term? Who, if anyone, has applied it outside of ethnobotany? How does it relate to concepts like keystone species, flagship species, indicator species, and other ecological concepts of a similar nature?
The bottom line: THIS article does not discuss concepts like keystone species, flagship species, etc. - and "life support species" seems to be precisely this sort of thing - best discussed elsewhere. Dyanega (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-27T17:10:00.000Z","author":"Dyanega","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dyanega-2010-04-27T17:10:00.000Z-\"Life_support_species\"?","replies":[]}}-->
A bit spammy/overly long no? Remove? Richard001 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-17T07:14:00.000Z","author":"Richard001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Richard001-2010-09-17T07:14:00.000Z-Science_Daily_external_links","replies":[]}}-->
In English at least, "species" is the plural form. Why is the word used in the singular context? ... Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-11T01:10:00.000Z","author":"PeterEasthope","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PeterEasthope-2010-05-11T01:10:00.000Z-Grammar","replies":["c-Why_Not_A_Duck-2010-05-11T01:39:00.000Z-PeterEasthope-2010-05-11T01:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
The article says, "According to this concept, populations form the discrete phonetic clusters that we recognize as species..." Is "phonetic" a typo for "phenetic"? I'm not sure enough to change it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-06-06T16:33:00.000Z","author":"JerryFriedman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JerryFriedman-2011-06-06T16:33:00.000Z-\"phonetic\"","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2011-06-07T03:50:00.000Z-JerryFriedman-2011-06-06T16:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
> 1,367,555 animals, including: [...] 1,000,000 insects
It makes it sound like 1,367,555 is a precise number, but it obviously isn't if it includes "something around a million insect species". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.98.25 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-07-18T16:46:00.000Z","author":"86.176.98.25","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.176.98.25-2011-07-18T16:46:00.000Z-Fake_precision","replies":["c-Michael_C_Price-2011-07-18T17:41:00.000Z-86.176.98.25-2011-07-18T16:46:00.000Z"]}}-->
Please pardon if I am posting this in the wrong place; I am not familiar with Wiki protocol, but I note a problem that should be specifically addressed. Under "Biologists' working definition" this statement uses the word "class" in a way that will confuse some biology students because they know the term as the taxonomic rank between phylum and order: "Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.225.15 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-07-21T13:20:00.000Z","author":"74.67.225.15","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-74.67.225.15-2011-07-21T13:20:00.000Z-Biological_Species_Concept_&_realms_of_biology,_etc.","replies":[]}}-->
Since the entry for species primarily treats the BSC, a few things are worth mentioning about it:
1. It is used heavily mostly in ornithology and mammalogy. I don't know fish or arthropods, but the BSC is very problematic in herps (species that are reproductively isolated in the wild but completely interfertile under artificial conditions are quite common). In botany the BSC has never played a significant role. As a result, the traditional approach followed here, of treating the BSC as "the standard species concept", seems to me a bit misleading.
2. Even in groups where taxonomists adhere to the BSC, most species are actually described and defined simply by using the morphological species concept. In order to explicitly apply the BSC, you need to do a bunch of cross-breeding experiments, and there simply isn't time or funding to do that for more than 0.01% at most (a very optimistic "most"!) of the taxa on earth. The result is that even in the 5% (or however much exactly) of taxa where the BSC is applicable in a useful fashion, biologists apply it directly on very rare occasions...
3. "Gene flow" and "reproductive isolation" are used interchangably in the entry, though they are very distinct phenomena, and this distinction is a severe problem for the BSC. For instance, in the sentence:
"Without reproductive isolation, population differences cannot develop, and given reproductive isolation, gene flow between the populations cannot merge the differences."
The first half is only true in terms of gene flow, not in terms of reproductive isolation (as that term is typically used in the BSC).
4. Allopatric populations and defining "reproductive isolation"... this is a recurrent problem for BSC advocates. In his original definitions, Mayr did not include "potential interbreeding", which meant that even geographic isolation was sufficient to qualify as "reproductive isolation", and all allopatric populations become new species regardless of any other considerations. In later definitions, Mayr added the "potential" part to allow allopatric populations to be treated comprehensibly, but defining the word "potential" is extremely problematic. What you'd want it to mean is that the species, if they occurred together naturally, wouldn't interbreed. However, that's untestable, so falls into the realm of simple speculation. So what BSC advocates usually do is say that "reproductive isolation" means that the species either won't mate or will produce infertile/inviable offspring if they do. This has its own problems (of which "3" is in some sense a subset) in that hybrid infertility is only one of many reproductive isolating mechanisms in the wild, and most of the other mechanisms (including behavioral ones) tend to break down under artificial conditions.
It's also worth mentioning that under the heading "phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species" is actually subsumed a variety of different species concepts which are mutually incompatible. Under "phylogenetic species concept" in botany there is both the PSC of Nixon & Wheeler and then several slightly different things that are perhaps better called "genealogical species concepts". PSC in zoology usually only refers to the "genealogical species concepts", and not the PSC of Nixon & Wheeler (just to confuse things; the PSC of Nixon & Wheeler might be called a "synapomorphic" or "phenetic" species concept by zoologists). The "evolutionary species concept" (of, e.g., Frost & Hillis) is widely cited in herpetology but rather vague; species are defined as "populations or groups of populations that are on independent evolutionary trajectories" but what exactly an "evolutionary trajectory" is, or how you're supposed to recognize one when you see it, is never made clear. "Darwinian species" is a term I haven't heard...
This article alluded to disagreements and uncertainty over defining species. In fact this is a huge issue. I just posted a new article on the species problem. I also stuck in a couple links to it in this article, and fixed Mayr's last definition of species Karebh 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-02T02:52:00.000Z","author":"Karebh","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Karebh-2007-02-02T02:52:00.000Z-species_problem","replies":["c-Philcha-2007-03-14T13:48:00.000Z-Karebh-2007-02-02T02:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
In this section, the statement "In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept" does not appear to be supported by the various definitions listed, nor by any that I have encountered as a biologist. No mention is made of "no artificial speciation" - or, rather, in the case referred to, no artificial creation of a (non-geographic) ring species (since intermediate breeds of dogs, for instance, can still interbreed, even if size differences prevent successful breeding between, say, Great Danes and Chihuahuas). Admittedly, such differences (at least with larger females and smaller males) can be overcome with artificial insemination; how to classify this is uncertain. Allens (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-10-18T14:50:00.000Z","author":"Allens","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Allens-2011-10-18T14:50:00.000Z-species_problem","replies":["c-Allens-2011-10-18T14:59:00.000Z-Allens-2011-10-18T14:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
This page discusses the species problem (1) in the introduction (2) in the little head-section "Biologists' working definition", (3) under "Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species", (4) under "Definitions of species" (these last two both point to "main article Species Problem". I'd like to take out all but one of these.
The section "Species as taxa" is about how species are named under the various codes of nomenclature, and that has already been covered above under "Placement within genera" so I'm going to start being bold by taking that one out.
This page needs trimming to less than half its current size. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-10T13:58:00.000Z","author":"Nadiatalent","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nadiatalent-2011-12-10T13:58:00.000Z-Extreme_repetition","replies":[]}}-->
So...."NORMALLY" ??? What are the names of "mammal species" that CAN interbreed ? silkythreads@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.130.47 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-26T16:18:00.000Z","author":"98.204.130.47","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-98.204.130.47-2009-12-26T16:18:00.000Z-Species","replies":["c-Pengo-2010-05-27T18:29:00.000Z-98.204.130.47-2009-12-26T16:18:00.000Z","c-Zyxwv99-2012-03-19T13:33:00.000Z-98.204.130.47-2009-12-26T16:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is a redirect here from Biological Species Concept, and it is linked from Ernst Mayr, but it is not dealt with as such on this page. I'm inclined to think that it would be best as a separate page ... Nadiatalent (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-01-17T18:21:00.000Z","author":"Nadiatalent","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nadiatalent-2012-01-17T18:21:00.000Z-Biological_Species_Concept","replies":[]}}-->
A Remark regarding the concept: At the beginning of the article is said: "From a scientific point of view this can be regarded as a hypothesis that the species is more closely related to other species within its genus (if any) than to species of other genera." This is not a hypotheses, it is a fact, because of the definition: Creatures can be grouped within one genus, when they are related closely enough. If not so, they are from different genera. They are not related, because they are one genus - they are one genus because they are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.112.188 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-01-30T16:56:00.000Z","author":"91.51.112.188","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-91.51.112.188-2012-01-30T16:56:00.000Z-Biological_Species_Concept","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2012-03-19T13:41:00.000Z-91.51.112.188-2012-01-30T16:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
In the subsection "Abbreviation" of the section "Binomial convention for naming species," it is said that "In books and articles that use the Latin alphabet, genus and species names are usually printed in italics. If using "sp." and "spp.," these should not be italicized." However, earlier on, the section uses the term "Canis sp.," (note the italics) which appears to be in contradiction with the note on usage. Am I right that this should be changed, or is this a special case of some sort? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.169.64 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-23T03:02:00.000Z","author":"24.182.169.64","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-24.182.169.64-2008-04-23T03:02:00.000Z-Naming_convention:_abbreviation_(contradiction?)","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2012-03-19T13:48:00.000Z-24.182.169.64-2008-04-23T03:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
It often corresponds to what lay people treat as the different basic kinds of organism - dogs are one species, cats another. Does this sound like it's saying that the two are members of the same genus? - 203.34.41.43 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-22T01:04:00.000Z","author":"203.34.41.43","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-203.34.41.43-2005-12-22T01:04:00.000Z-Dogs_and_cats","replies":["c-Marshman-2005-12-22T01:53:00.000Z-203.34.41.43-2005-12-22T01:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
On a subject that is only tangentially related, I read somewhere that "what lay people treat as the different basic kinds of organism" corresponds more nearly to genus than species (with the possible exception of domesticated animals). It's just that locally one is unlikely to encounter more than one species of the same genus. Thus each "primitive tribe" (traditional society) knows only one representative of each genus that it encounters.
As for the source, it might have been Gould, Dawkins, or Dennett. Or maybe somerthing on linguistics such as Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-19T13:49:00.000Z","author":"Zyxwv99","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Zyxwv99-2012-03-19T13:49:00.000Z-Dogs_and_cats","replies":[]}}-->
I am not confident of my understanding of the status of the word subspecies in technical discussion either, but as the parent article points to race, I believe that it should at least discuss the concept. It seems to me that there are these possibilities: 1) the concept of subspecies is in general no more useful than race is for homo sapiens and therefore is deprecated in technical discourse, 2) the concept of subspecies is meaningful for some species, but, at least since the extinction of homo neanderthalensis, not for homo sapiens, 3) the possibility that you suggest, 4) that those who defend the use of the word race in a biological sense mean something different from a technically accepted meaning accorded to the word subspecies. -- Alan Peakall 18:53 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
One of my professors, who in part studies different species' perceptual systems, claims that what gets called a new species and what gets called a subspecies is often more historical accident than principled distinction. Perhaps this is similar to the unprincipled way in which certain scientific results end up being called "laws", others "theories", etc.. (I know many people insist these words have well-defined technical meanings, but whether or not people pay any attention to those meanings in deciding which label to use is another story.) --Ryguasu 20:51 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
If humans living today have ancestors that were Neanderthals, the Neanderthals would be a subspecie of homo sapiens, that is they should be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. By the way, is the same true for Homo Erectus? If I do not remember wrong, both modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and the Neanderthals descend from Homo Erectus. Does that mean that they also belong to the same specie? Would Homo Erectus have been able to get fertile offspring with modern humans? --Oddeivind (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-10-31T08:58:00.000Z","author":"Oddeivind","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oddeivind-2012-10-31T08:58:00.000Z-Subspecies","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2012-10-31T09:45:00.000Z-Oddeivind-2012-10-31T08:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was wondering that prokaryotic/bacterial species is not mentioned in this article. I do realise that prokaryotes species concept is rather too vague at this moment but there is indeed a practical one going on at this time. It cant be merely considered as a phylospecies concept since it uses a polyphasic approach including morpho, chemo and molecular taxonomies. Wondering if a mention of the polyphasic approach in this article which links to a seperate entry on bacterial species would be a good idea. Wikiality 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-06T10:08:00.000Z","author":"Wikiality123","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wikiality123-2007-05-06T10:08:00.000Z-Prokaryotic\/bacterial_species","replies":["c-Wikiality123-2007-06-05T11:19:00.000Z-Wikiality123-2007-05-06T10:08:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Wikiality"}}-->
"Total number of species (estimated): 2 - 100 millions (identified and unidentified), including: 5-10 million bacteria[11];"
The lowest number of bacteria cannot be bigger than the lowest number of species because the former is a subset of the later. Probably the number have been collated from different sources. Maybe the number of species did not include bacteria. Anyway the numbers as listed just don't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.232.89 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-24T16:41:00.000Z","author":"82.67.232.89","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-82.67.232.89-2009-03-24T16:41:00.000Z-Numbers_that_don't_make_sense","replies":["c-Michael_C_Price-2009-03-24T21:58:00.000Z-82.67.232.89-2009-03-24T16:41:00.000Z","c-67.175.244.80-2013-01-28T03:55:00.000Z-82.67.232.89-2009-03-24T16:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
+1 to all of the above. "The total number of eukaryotic species is likely to be 5 ± 3 million of which about 1.5 million have been already named." then a short time later, "As many as 10–30 million insects"
Almost this entire article is now dedicated to the lawyering of definitions, with little focus on actually helping the reader understand what a species is. There is no longer any concrete examples of species, there is no mention of the relation between species and genus, there is no mention of bionomial names, and there is no attempt to give a short, easily-understod definition (to be expanded later), and there is far too much emphasis on the debate about definitions.
Yes, definition is important, but most of the time species boundaries are clear cut. And we already have an article dedicated to the species problem. This is an encyclopedia, and an article about species. It's not just an overly-long dictionary definition.
Here is a link to an older version of the article with an introduction covering the above (which I, and many others, worked on substantially). I can't find the exact point when it was replaced with a mere definition. —Pengo 10:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-05T10:02:00.000Z","author":"Pengo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pengo-2010-07-05T10:02:00.000Z-WTF_happened_to_the_intro?","replies":["c-Pengo-2010-07-05T10:18:00.000Z-Pengo-2010-07-05T10:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
I am a PhD microbiology researcher, so I'm biased, but this article could use a few more values for the number of microbial species. There is no estimate for the number of prokaryotic (bacterial and archaeal) species that are identified (scientifically named and described species) in this article, only ESTIMATES of the total. Both and both known and estimated numbers are provided for eukaryotes. For prokaryotes, how the species in known (type culture, by 98% rRNA sequence, or estimated) is important.
Therefore, I would like to propose adding the following outline in the section on Number of Species, between the outline "Total number of species (estimated)" and the outline "Of the identified eukaryote species we have:".
Of the 6,000 to 170,000 identified prokaryotic species there are:
I think that the above addition would allow readers to compare the numbers of identified vs. estimated species in enough detail. This would mean deleting the "In 2007, they broke down as follows" sentence, since it does not apply to all that follows, and it is cited again when appropriate anyway.
Here is my reasoning for the above values:
This paper: The All-Species Living Tree project. Yarza et al. 20008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692976 [4] provides a lower-bound estimate of 6728, since the Type Species they are describing are a subset of named species, almost all of which have been grown in pure culture and are in collections (see article).
While the estimates of 5–10 million bacteria are still current, and probably better supported (as pointed out elsewhere, the species concept is even more difficult for these organisms) the paper listed below [2] cites a range from 10^7 to 10^9 (10 to 1,000 million) for the estimated number of species on the planet.
There is also published estimates of 35,498 total species richness, based on the 16,000 species that have been "seen by science". This latter value is based on the number of different 16S_ribosomal_RNA or RRNA genes (also see Molecular_phylogenetics) that are 98% or more divergent as described in this paper: Status of the Microbial Census. Schloss and Handelsman. 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15590780 [2]. However, the data they were basing their estimate on was much less than is in current databases, so I referenced release 10 to the RDP for a current number.
I've included values from the NCBI GenBank database's Taxonomy section since it is current, and the repository for all sequences. NCBI also has a taxonomic identifier for each sequence. [5]
69.92.225.92 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-09T01:18:00.000Z","author":"69.92.225.92","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-69.92.225.92-2011-01-09T01:18:00.000Z-Add_prokaryotic_known_vs._predicted_number_of_species","replies":["c-67.175.244.80-2013-01-28T06:04:00.000Z-69.92.225.92-2011-01-09T01:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
When I found the section on "Numbers of Species" in the article, today, various things were listed under procaryotes that simply were not, and so both overall structure and numbers were simply errant.
I fixed these by adding two paragraphs, one each on Domains Bacteria and Archaea, the two primary domains that are prokaryotic, and giving the literature on what amount to estimates of species numbers for these two domains. These numbers are of course problematic (as everyone in this field knows), hence the text, rather than just a bulleted number.
After doing this I reskimmed the article, and the Talk page, and have to say I fully concur with folks pointing to the repetition and other serious editorial issues with this article. Had I received this version as a draft from a student, I would have directed them to return to the drawing board, and return with (i) a proper outline of the intended piece, (ii) the word limit that was being aimed at, and (iii) an up-to-date, annotated bibliography of citations of primary importance.
As it stands, without such a "stepping back" type of systematic reevaluation and eventual rewrite of the article, it stands as a hodge-podge of information that is neither convincingly authoritative, nor pedagogically effective. We have missed the forest for the trees, and we seem to want to keep on planting—when we should be asking what fruit we wish the orchard to produce, and then re-start by properly designing the orchard.
If someone would endeavor to do this, I would note: (i) It will be critical to deal separately with organisms to which classical definitions apply, and those to which they do not (procaryotes and microbes experiencing HGT, etc.). (ii) It will be important to move away from listing everything, and being comprehensive, to having the article provide perspective: Where is the preponderance of scientific opinion, or what are the primary themes that are currently in tension among the key people working in this area? We need not list all ingredients in the foodstuff, only the main ingredients, the active ingredients. All animals are not created equal. All articles and ideas that have been promoted do not deserve equal time. (iii) It will be important, somewhat, to get out of the "Mayr" [sic] that this article seems, in places, to be stuck in, and make things very current. (Forgive me Herr Prof Dr Mayr, but there are some new things under the sun.) There can and should be a decent history section, but the main point of the article should be, what is current understanding of the concepts? (The development of the history is already addressed in the separate Species Problem article, and could be an article unto itself.)
Bottom line, the repetition, the list-orientation, the glaring omissions (of the prokaryotic issue, etc.), etc. make for a largely unhelpful article as it currently stands. It needs a redesign, where parts of this could be plugged into a new overarching structure. I leave it to the experts to determine that structure, where, my only firm suggestion is the separation of organisms to which classical definitions (and their derivations) cannot be applied, from the rest.
With regard, LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-28T06:45:00.000Z","author":"67.175.244.80","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.175.244.80-2013-01-28T06:45:00.000Z-In_re:_extreme_repetition,_etc._(from_an_antiinfectives_DD_prof)","replies":["c-Peter_coxhead-2013-07-04T12:58:00.000Z-67.175.244.80-2013-01-28T06:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
It appears, from surveying top to bottom, that at some point it became acceptable in this article to offer text without citation. Please, let's change this, beginning immediately. Please hold the line—when people offer edits without citations, please reject if they are other than lines of segue, etc.—certainly if they contain factual historical or scientific content, and/or quotation. And please, begin to reject casual referencing (e.g., "Dawkins, pp. xx" inline) of others, whether they are to authors in antiquity or contemporaneous. The quality of the article will not improve until the community of regular editors of the article decide it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-25T02:16:00.000Z","author":"50.179.92.36","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-50.179.92.36-2013-11-25T02:16:00.000Z-Poor_quality_referencing_is_endemic_to_article?","replies":[]}}-->
As noted in the edit title/explanation, the text in the section named above has existed either as original work, or as plagiarism, since 2009, with two citations in total, one relatively immaterial to an historical figure, and a second to a popular science tome by Dawkins. This is to say, the article fully lacks acceptable sourcing of its factual material, as the tag has long indicated. Enough time has passed, and this should be an embarrassment to wikipedia, allowing such things to remain for longer periods. Return the content, but only with whatever text can be produced that includes cited sources. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-15T20:26:00.000Z","author":"98.223.9.222","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-98.223.9.222-2013-08-15T20:26:00.000Z-\"History_and_development_of_the_species_concept\"_section_deleted,_for_approachin","replies":["c-Obsidian_Soul-2013-08-15T22:49:00.000Z-98.223.9.222-2013-08-15T20:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
This article is of highest importance to a assist readers in developing a modern understanding of biology (C-Class in two areas). Request is made for subject matter experts to read the entirety of the article for its overall structure, scope, and specific content, to assist in addressing longstanding matters of expertise regarding the subject's definition in modern research (across all Kingdoms), as well as the historical development of the concept through to the modern era. It is expected that experts in evolutionary studies/organismal biology, microbial evolution, and history of science might be needed. At the same time, patterns of writing that include redundancies across sections, comprehensive list-making rather than topic prioritization and synthesis, authorship without citation, etc. might be addressed. I will contact John Wilkins, and see if he might be interested in advising at some high level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-25T05:04:00.000Z","author":"50.179.92.36","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-50.179.92.36-2013-11-25T05:04:00.000Z-Request:_subject_matter_experts_with_broad_understanding_of_species_meaning_acro","replies":[]}}-->
So, let's make this perfectly clear. I am a science faculty member, and am stating strong objections to the repeated egregious, longstanding practice of allowing unreferenced material to remain in this article. I am stating, in direct fashion, that to continue, for years to allow original research material, or plagiarised material (for sources used without attribution are plagiarised, even if paraphrased—the Wikipedia definition is "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,") is unacceptable practice.
Even so, you not only carte blanche reject the removal of a section which has for years persisted with factual information, but without citations, you also in real-time, while I am yet working, without explanation, remove various inline tags requesting that specific factual information-containing sentences and sections have citations added.
In other articles I edit, our rule is 6 months for edits to have reliable citations. But this is apparently your bailiwick. I will not argue further. I have not the time or interest. Enjoy your article—it is yours. It will never rise above the third year undergraduate sensibility, as long as your standards obtain, and you respect no other contribution except your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-25T02:42:00.000Z","author":"50.179.92.36","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-50.179.92.36-2013-11-25T02:42:00.000Z-Reversions_without_discussion,_strongest_of_objections_raised","replies":["c-Obsidian_Soul-2013-11-25T03:31:00.000Z-50.179.92.36-2013-11-25T02:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
Perhaps it would be helpful for the lay person, if anyone with sufficient knowledge would be pleased to explain the classification of the African elephant species (plural) in terms of this article?
This article has grown into a bit of a mess. It starts well with a discussion of the different possible definition of species, but there's a ragbag of stuff at the end. It needs a thorough sort out - I'll get to it when I have time, but...
seglea 16:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Might I suggest it be added that the definition in the Endangered Species Act which includes sub-species and "and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." This is misleading and renders the question highly political.
I noticed your quick example guide to the number of species in each major group left out protists.
There are thought to be approximately 200,000 species of protists, and about 120,000 are named. See papers by Corliss 1982.
Since 'Protists' is a paraphyletic group, here is an approximate breakdown by clade:
Foraminifera 37,500 Diatoms 25-100,000 Green algae 10,000 Ciliates 7,500 Actinopod amoebae 7,000 Red Algae 6,000 Sporozoa 4,800 Stramenopiles 4,500 Dinoflagellates 4,200 Rhizopod amoebae 2,500 Metamonads 2,200 Unspecified flagellates 2,000 Euglenoids 1,600 Haptomonads 1,500 Chytrids 900 Myxozoa 875 Microsporidia 800 Slime molds 550 Pelobionts 280 Cryptomonads 200 Choanoflagellates 140 Plasmodiophorids 36 Haplosporidia 30 Acrasids 26
This is emphatically NOT intended as a starter for another interminable discussion of how to define "species", but an issue of whether terms derived from the literature are correctly described and referenced. In Species#Definitions of species there are paragraphs headed "Typological species" and "Morphological species", which aren't referenced. "Typological species" is a concept which seems to originate from Mayr (1963), although this is not cited in the article, where Mayr's views seem to be based on secondary sources (including ones which might well be regarded as hostile, such as de Queiroz – Mayr and de Queiroz have regularly disagreed in print over cladistic taxonomy). Mayr specifically says "The typological species concept, translated into practical taxonomy, is the morphologically defined species" (Mayr, 1963, p. 16; also quoted in Ruse (1969)). Hence there is no referenced justification for keeping these paragraphs separate, nor for attaching the term "morphospecies" only to the "Typological species" paragraph. I'm not going to make an edit to what is clearly a contentious topic without some prior opportunity for comment, but I would like to merge or otherwise connect these two and add some clearer references.
Historic site in Guadalajara, SpainChapel of Luis de LucenaNative name Spanish: Capilla de Luis de LucenaLocationGuadalajara, SpainCoordinates40°38′07″N 3°09′43″W / 40.635222°N 3.161975°W / 40.635222; -3.161975 Spanish Cultural HeritageOfficial nameCapilla de Luis de LucenaTypeNon-movableCriteriaMonumentDesignated1914Reference no.RI-51-0000133 Location of Chapel of Luis de Lucena in Spain The Chapel of Luis de Lucena (Spanish: Capilla de Luis de Lucena o …
Almonaster la Real municipio de EspañaBanderaEscudo Almonaster la RealUbicación de Almonaster la Real en España. Almonaster la RealUbicación de Almonaster la Real en la provincia de Huelva.País España• Com. autónoma Andalucía• Provincia Huelva• Partido judicial Aracena[1]Ubicación 37°52′24″N 6°47′10″O / 37.8732724, -6.7861298• Altitud 912,958 m[2] mSuperficie 321,29 …
← Resh Syin Taw → Fenisia Ibrani Aram Suryani Arab ש ܫ ش,ش Alfabetturunan Yunani Latin Kiril Σ S С Ш Representasi fonemik: ʃ / s Urutan dalam alfabet: 21 Nilai huruf/Gematria: 300 Abjad Semitik Abjad Fenisia(c.1050 – 200 SM)
Orang Vietnam di PrancisNgười Pháp gốc Việt (Vietnam) Vietnamiens en France (Prancis)Hàm NghiNguyên LêLinh Dan PhamYohan CabayeThích Nhất HạnhKayaneAudrey GiacominiNgô Bảo ChâuLiêm Hoang NgocDaerah dengan populasi signifikanWilayah Paris dan Île-de-France, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Lille, BordeauxBahasaPrancis (standar dan dialek Vietnam), VietnamAgamaBuddha Mahayana dengan unsur-unsur dari Konghucu dan Tao, minoritas signifikan Katolik RomaKelompok etnik terkaitVietnam pe…
Економіка Буркіна-Фасо Уагадугу - фінансовий центр країниВалюта Франк КФАФінансовий рік календарний рікОрганізації ВТОСтатистикаВВП ▲ $32,97 млрд. (2016)Зростання ВВП ▲ 5,9 % (2016)ВВП на душу населення $1,800 (2016)ВВП за секторами сільське господарство: 32,6 %, промисловість 22,2 …
Lima solaReformasi Protestan Sola scriptura Sola fide Sola gratia Solus Christus Soli Deo glorialbs Martin Luther, pencetus sola scriptura Bagian dari seri tentangGereja LutheranMawar Luther Concordia Pengakuan Iman Rasuli Pengakuan Iman Nicea Pengakuan Iman Atanasius Pengakuan Iman Augsburg Apologia Pengakuan Iman Augsburg Katekismus Besar Katekismus Kecil Pokok-Pokok Iman Schmalkalden Risalah Tentang Kewenangan dan Keutamaan Paus Rumusan Concordia Teologi Teologi Martin Luther Pembenaran Hukum…
Lambang JambiDetailDigunakan sejak1969PerisaiPer fess Kuning dan Biru, di kemuncak kubah masjid Putih, batu alasnya abu-abu/warna alam, di bagian bawah cerana kuning, gagangnya ditumpuk sebuah gong dan keris siginjai per pale, dan muncul dari gelombang air, semua warna alam.Mottosepucuk Jambi sembilan lurah hitam di atas pita kuning. Prangko Lambang Provinsi Jambi Lambang Jambi yang ditetapkan dengan Peraturan Daerah Nomor 1 tahun 1969 berbentuk perisai segi lima yang di dalamnya terdapat gambar…
Vivian Juanita Malone JonesMalone, 1962Lahir(1942-07-15)15 Juli 1942Mobile, Alabama, A.S.Meninggal13 Oktober 2005(2005-10-13) (umur 63)Atlanta, Georgia, A.S.AlmamaterUniversitas AlabamaDikenal atasMengintegrasikan Universitas AlabamaSuami/istriMack Arthur JonesAnak2KerabatEric Holder (kakak ipar) Jeff Malone (keponakan) Vivian Juanita Malone Jones (15 Juli 1942 – 13 Oktober 2005) adalah salah satu dari dua mahasiswa kulit hitam pertama yang mendaftar di Universitas Alabama p…
Malang Stoomtram Maatschappij, N.V.Kereta MSM yang berhenti di Alun-Alun MalangIkhtisarKantor pusat Kota Malang, Jawa Timur, Hindia BelandaLokalKabupaten dan Kota MalangTanggal beroperasi1897–1959PenerusKereta Api IndonesiaTeknisLebar sepur1.067 mm (3 ft 6 in)Panjang jalur85 km Malang Stoomtram Maatschappij, N.V. (MS) adalah salah satu perusahaan kereta api yang dahulu mengoperasikan jalur kereta api di wilayah Malang Raya, Jawa Timur. Fokus perusahaan ini adalah pengan…
Gebäude des Amtsgerichts Karlsruhe-Durlach Das Amtsgericht Karlsruhe-Durlach ist ein Gericht der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Württemberg und eines von acht Amtsgerichten im Bezirk des Landgerichtes Karlsruhe. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Sitz 2 Gerichtsbezirk 3 Siehe auch 4 Quellen 5 Einzelnachweise 6 Weblinks Sitz Das Amtsgerichtsgebäude in der Karlsburg-Straße 10 wurde 1875 errichtet und ist heute ein geschütztes Kulturdenkmal.[1] Der dreigeschossige Massivbau mit Kranzgesims, R…
ソビエト連邦の政治家アンドレイ・ヴィシンスキーАндрей Вышинский 生年月日 (1883-12-10) 1883年12月10日出生地 ロシア帝国 オデッサ没年月日 1954年11月22日(1954-11-22)(70歳)死没地 アメリカ合衆国 ニューヨーク州ニューヨーク出身校 キエフ大学所属政党 ロシア社会民主労働党(メンシェヴィキ)ロシア共産党(ボリシェヴィキ)ソビエト連邦共産党配偶者 カピトリー
У Вікіпедії є статті про інших людей із прізвищем Бобанич. Тарас БобаничТарас Миколайович Бобанич Молодший лейтенант Загальна інформаціяНародження 15 березня 1989(1989-03-15)Трускавець, Львівська область, Українська РСР, СРСРСмерть 8 квітня 2022(2022-04-08) (33 роки)с. Вірнопілля, Хар
2007 single by DJ Khaled featuring Akon, T.I., Rick Ross, Fat Joe, Birdman and Lil WayneWe Takin' OverSingle by DJ Khaled featuring Akon, T.I., Rick Ross, Fat Joe, Birdman and Lil Waynefrom the album We the Best ReleasedMarch 27, 2007 (2007-03-27)Recorded2006GenreHip hopLength4:31LabelTerror SquadKochSongwriter(s)Aliaune ThiamClifford Harris, Jr.Jose CartagenaWilliam Roberts IIBryan WilliamsDwayne CarterNathaniel HillsKhaled KhaledProducer(s)DanjaDJ Khaled singles chronology B…
المقاطعة التشيلية بالقارة القطبية الجنوبية الإحداثيات 55°43′00″S 67°22′00″W / 55.716666666667°S 67.366666666667°W / -55.716666666667; -67.366666666667 تقسيم إداري البلد تشيلي[1] التقسيم الأعلى إقليم ماجلان العاصمة بويرتو ويليامز التقسيمات الإدارية كابو دي في هورنوس…
CC BY-SA 4.0协议允許下,本頁面部份使用Wikia的內容。原始內容在hkbus,編者列表。 九龍區專線小巴88線概覽營運公司長利貿易使用車輛豐田CoasterLPG线路信息线路類型循環線起點站啟德(啟晴邨)途經九龍城/新蒲崗終點站黃大仙站线路长度7.8公里服務時間06:00-22:30班次頻率12-20分鐘票价$4.0走線圖九龍專線小巴88線的走線圖 九龍區專線小巴88線,由長利貿易營辦,循環來往啟德啟…
American college basketball season 2021–22 Butler Bulldogs men's basketballConferenceBig East ConferenceRecord14–19 (6–14 Big East)Head coachLaVall Jordan (5th season)Assistant coaches Emerson Kampen (6th season) Omar Lowery (5th season) David Ragland (1st season) Home arenaHinkle FieldhouseSeasons← 2020–212022–23 → 2021–22 Big East men's basketball standings vte Conf Overall Team W L PCT W L PCT No. 13 Providence 14 –…
Vayalar Sarath Chandra VarmaSarath in 2010Born (1960-02-12) 12 February 1960 (age 63)Vayalar, Alappuzha, Kerala, IndiaAlma materMar Ivanios CollegeOccupationLyricistYears active1992–presentSpouseSreelathaParentVayalar Ramavarma (father)Awards2003 & 2009 Asianet Film Award for Best Lyricist Vayalar Sarath Chandra Varma (born 12 February 1960) is a noted malayalam lyricist and poet. He is the son of Malayalam poet and lyricist late Vayalar Ramavarma. He made his debut in the m…
Fictional main character from the 2012 film Brave Fictional character MeridaBrave characterMerida as she appears in Brave (2012).First appearanceBrave (2012)Created byBrenda ChapmanVoiced by Kelly MacdonaldPeigi Barker (child)(Brave, Brave (video game)) Ruth Connell(Disney Infinity 3.0, Sofia the First, Lego The Incredibles) Portrayed byAmy Manson (Once Upon a Time)In-universe informationTitlePrincess of DunBrochAffiliationDisney PrincessesFamilyKing Fergus (father)Queen Elinor (mother)Princes H…
Cet article dresse une liste des lieux, objets ou d'autres choses nommées d'après l'homme d'affaires et ancien président des États-Unis Donald Trump. Beaucoup de ces choses sont associées à la Trump Organization, un conglomérat qu'il détient et qui agit dans différents domaines (développement immobilier, hôtellerie, tourisme, tours résidentielles et terrains de golfs), aux États-Unis comme à l'international. Immobilier Trump Tower Trump Tower à New York Dont la construction est ac…
American Judaica scholar and author (1873–1942) Jacob Zallel Lauterbach Jacob Zallel Lauterbach (1873–1942) was an American Judaica scholar and author who served on the faculty of Hebrew Union College and composed responsa for the Reform movement in America. He specialized in Midrashic and Talmudical literature, and is best known for his landmark critical edition and English translation of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Life and work Jacob Z. Lauterbach was first and foremost a talmudist (Fre…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.145.17.99