Should We Just Call Dog Breeds a Different Species?

Jamie found an amusing bit this morning on Scientific American where the author proposes that dog breeds are different species. Now some of you might recoil when you hear this suggestion, but if you read the article to see why he makes this suggestion I suspect you'll crack a smile and appreciate the elegance of the solution.

Comments

Biologists already use his criteria.

[Ma8thew]

Biologists already define a separate species as when two individuals cannot mate, be it due to genetics or mechanical or behavioural difficulties. The problem with dog breeds is that a Chihuahua can mate with a terrier, and a terrier can mate with a gun dog, and a gun dog can mate with the largest of dogs. Where would the author draw the line between species? There are a lot of cases like this in nature, and it is basically an arbitrary decision as to whether speciation has occurred. The whole premise of this article is essentially flawed, as it suggests that biologists have not already thought about these difficulties, when in fact this is basic pre-university biology.

And not entirely correct

[StCredZero]

When we observe Ring Species we are clearly catching mother nature red-handed in the act of speciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

These things are freaky:

                A--B--C--D--E--F--G--A

Members of a ring species can interbreed with their immediate neighbors, but not with distant neighbors halfway around the ring. (So in my diagrom, A can interbreed with B and G, but not C, D, E, or F. Sometimes the ring develops a break, and becomes a line:

                A--B--C--D--E--F--G

Then to have a speciation event, all you need is another break in the line:

                A--B--C

                E--F--G

There are ring species comprised of small creatures who only live in a small range of elevation around the side of a mountain, so their habitat literally looks like a small ring. Two well timed avalanches could be enough.