• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Taxonomy question: Are cows and bison separate species?

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
The definition of species we were given in high school was "can they produce fertile offspring?" If yes, then they're the same species. If not, they're different species. The problem with this definition is  ring species:



Ring species make it impossible to distinguish the boundary between species. Of course, we expect this (if you believe in evolution). The very notion of "species" is just a logical construct we humans try to impose on life. Life doesn't actually give a shit if all or any of it fits into the little mental boxes we created in our heads. If all life is related, we expect the lines to be bit blurry in places.

This brings us to bison and cows. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

The operative word is "can." Apparently, it wasn't easy to produce.

I'm not exactly versed in taxonomy. The Wikipedia article lists cattle and bison as separate species. What I want to know is why? How do they make these decisions anyway?
 
From my understanding of species, no. They would be the same species since they can interbreed producing the beefalo, a fertile hybrid. (sorta like a cockapoo, a hybrid between a cocker spaniel and a poodle)

The term "species" is rather imprecise and people, even biologists, will argue about it. Just in case you haven't noticed... Wikipedia can be a piss poor source, it isn't written by experts and in some cases entries will be lay opinion presented as fact.
 
Last edited:
The best answer I can come up with is 'Who cares?'.

The word 'species' is poorly defined at edge cases; It is useful, until it's not. There's no point in getting hung up on it - either declare them to be one species for reasons; or two species for other reasons, and move on. Which you pick has more to do with what you plan to do with the description once you have it.

If you want to know whether they can reproduce and produce fertile offspring, then ask that question, and forget the word 'species' altogether - if its use could easily be misinterpreted, use a different word, or phrase.

That's a good rule of thumb for ANY word, btw.
 
Does same spices infer capacity to interbreed?
 
The definition of species we were given in high school was "can they produce fertile offspring?" If yes, then they're the same species. If not, they're different species. The problem with this definition is  ring species:



Ring species make it impossible to distinguish the boundary between species. Of course, we expect this (if you believe in evolution). The very notion of "species" is just a logical construct we humans try to impose on life. Life doesn't actually give a shit if all or any of it fits into the little mental boxes we created in our heads. If all life is related, we expect the lines to be bit blurry in places.

This brings us to bison and cows. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

The operative word is "can." Apparently, it wasn't easy to produce.

I'm not exactly versed in taxonomy. The Wikipedia article lists cattle and bison as separate species. What I want to know is why? How do they make these decisions anyway?
To be read aloud with an Australian accent:

What's the difference between a buffalo and a bison?

You can't wash your hands in a buffalo.

There are a few issues here, some of which have been addressed. Certainly the notion of "species" is one that humans invented, and has 'fuzzy edges'. That being said, it is worth noting that the "biological species" definition is only one of several, and is only applicable to certain organisms (each bacterial cell might be considered a separate species under the biological species concept). You can find a discussion of different species concepts here.

Under the biological species concept, one could consider cattle and bison to be members of the same species, but as far as I know nobody actually considers them to be members of one species. It is largely arbitrary, the definition depends mostly on how convenient it is for humans in a particular context.

Peez
 
The definition of species we were given in high school was "can they produce fertile offspring?" If yes, then they're the same species. If not, they're different species. The problem with this definition is  ring species:



Ring species make it impossible to distinguish the boundary between species. Of course, we expect this (if you believe in evolution). The very notion of "species" is just a logical construct we humans try to impose on life. Life doesn't actually give a shit if all or any of it fits into the little mental boxes we created in our heads. If all life is related, we expect the lines to be bit blurry in places.

This brings us to bison and cows. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

The operative word is "can." Apparently, it wasn't easy to produce.

I'm not exactly versed in taxonomy. The Wikipedia article lists cattle and bison as separate species. What I want to know is why? How do they make these decisions anyway?


Such decisions have been made historically since the days of the founding of taxonomy, most notably by Carl Linnaeus. But definitions have changed as more observations have had to be accommodated. Horses and donkeys give us mules,who are usually sterile. But rarely are not. Sheep and goats can successfully breed. Some strains of these hybrids are fertile. Before the knowledge of DNA and chromosomes, little was known about how such things are organized. And with the development of DNA sequencing, ideas have shifted again. Zoology and botany have their differences, in some cases in botany, the idea of species is almost meaningless and botanist often speak of clines or complexes. Splitter vs lumper arguments have been a large feature among botany taxonomists. Mycologists and bacteriologists have their own peculiarities to consider. The arguments among various experts are many and varied. There are no simple answers.
 
This isn't a biological question, it's a linguistic one.

Technical terms, such as 'species' exist to help us to understand reality. If they are not serving that purpose in a given context, then we should use other, more useful, words instead.

The words are useful only insofar as they help our understanding. They are not, and should not be allowed to become, a straitjacket on our thought processes. Words do NOT have power, outside the fields of religion and politics (both of which are the inferior, for allowing words to control men, rather than the other way about).
 
This isn't a biological question, it's a linguistic one.

Technical terms, such as 'species' exist to help us to understand reality. If they are not serving that purpose in a given context, then we should use other, more useful, words instead.

The words are useful only insofar as they help our understanding. They are not, and should not be allowed to become, a straitjacket on our thought processes. Words do NOT have power, outside the fields of religion and politics (both of which are the inferior, for allowing words to control men, rather than the other way about).
You make a fair point, but there is a biological concept behind the term "species". Because this concept is, by its very nature, 'fuzzy around the edges', it does not lend itself to precise definition. Very broadly a species is a relatively homogeneous group of organisms that is distinct from other such groups, but of course this begs the questions "how homogeneous?" and "how distinct?"

Peez
 
Ah, the old Cold Spring Harbor dinner conversation! What, exactly, is a species?

If you can track down a copy, R.L. Mayden's "Hierarchy of Species Concepts" (1997) is a great old summary of the situation as it existed at that time: 22 definitions in common use, and no real crowning argument for one over another. Things have only gotten more complicated as we have developed more nuanced and detailed approaches to the genome.
 
This isn't a biological question, it's a linguistic one.

Technical terms, such as 'species' exist to help us to understand reality. If they are not serving that purpose in a given context, then we should use other, more useful, words instead.

The words are useful only insofar as they help our understanding. They are not, and should not be allowed to become, a straitjacket on our thought processes. Words do NOT have power, outside the fields of religion and politics (both of which are the inferior, for allowing words to control men, rather than the other way about).
You make a fair point, but there is a biological concept behind the term "species". Because this concept is, by its very nature, 'fuzzy around the edges', it does not lend itself to precise definition. Very broadly a species is a relatively homogeneous group of organisms that is distinct from other such groups, but of course this begs the questions "how homogeneous?" and "how distinct?"

Peez

Absolutely. It's a very useful concept (or perhaps 'set of closely related concepts') that certainly deserves its own word. But at the edge cases, the word can become more of a hindrance than a benefit, and questions such as that in the OP, which simply reflect the limits of the concept, may be misinterpreted as reflecting a nonexistent limit of human knowledge.

This is particularly problematic when religionists are determined to misunderstand the concept of species to suit their own agenda.
 
What is the current genetic tree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

The idea of a "tree of life" arose from ancient notions of a ladder-like progression from lower into higher forms of life (such as in the Great Chain of Being). Early representations of "branching" phylogenetic trees include a "paleontological chart" showing the geological relationships among plants and animals in the book Elementary Geology, by Edward Hitchcock (first edition: 1840).

Charles Darwin (1859) also produced one of the first illustrations and crucially popularized the notion of an evolutionary "tree" in his seminal book The Origin of Species. Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because such diagrams effectively convey the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptive and semirandom splitting of lineages. Over time, species classification has become less static and more dynamic.

The term phylogenetic, or phylogeny, derives from the two ancient greek words φῦλον (phûlon), meaning "race, lineage", and γένεσις (génesis), meaning "origin, source"

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/trait-evolution-on-a-phylogenetic-tree-relatedness-41936

In biology, the concept of relatedness is defined in terms of recency to a common ancestor. As a result, the question "Is species A more closely related to species B or to species C?" can be answered by asking whether species A shares a more recent common ancestor with species B or with species C. To help clarify this logic, think about the relationships within human families. The most recent common ancestors of both you and your siblings are your parents; the most recent common ancestors of you and your first cousins are your grandparents; and the most recent common ancestors of you and your second cousins are your great-grandparents. Note that your parents are situated one generation ago, your grandparents are situated two generations ago, and your great-grandparents are situated three generations ago. This arrangement of ancestors explains why you are more closely related to your siblings than your cousins, and why you are more closely related to your first cousins than your second cousins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Speciation

Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.[234]

There are multiple ways to define the concept of "species." The choice of definition is dependent on the particularities of the species concerned.[235] For example, some species concepts apply more readily toward sexually reproducing organisms while others lend themselves better toward asexual organisms. Despite the diversity of various species concepts, these various concepts can be placed into one of three broad philosophical approaches: interbreeding, ecological and phylogenetic.[236] The Biological Species Concept (BSC) is a classic example of the interbreeding approach. Defined by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 1942, the BSC states that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."[237] Despite its wide and long-term use, the BSC like others is not without controversy, for example because these concepts cannot be applied to prokaryotes,[238] and this is called the species problem.[235] Some researchers have attempted a unifying monistic definition of species, while others adopt a pluralistic approach and suggest that there may be different ways to logically interpret the definition of a species.[235][236]

Barriers to reproduction between two diverging sexual populations are required for the populations to become new species. Gene flow may slow this process by spreading the new genetic variants also to the other populations. Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules.[239] Such hybrids are generally infertile. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype.[240] The importance of hybridisation in producing new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals,[241] with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example
 
From my understanding of species, no. They would be the same species since they can interbreed producing the beefalo, a fertile hybrid. (sorta like a cockapoo, a hybrid between a cocker spaniel and a poodle)

The term "species" is rather imprecise and people, even biologists, will argue about it. Just in case you haven't noticed... Wikipedia can be a piss poor source, it isn't written by experts and in some cases entries will be lay opinion presented as fact.

Bison and cattle do produce fertile offspring, it just takes a lot of finagling from the breeders to get just the right combination of genes.
 
The definition of species we were given in high school was "can they produce fertile offspring?" If yes, then they're the same species. If not, they're different species. The problem with this definition is  ring species:

...

Ring species make it impossible to distinguish the boundary between species. Of course, we expect this (if you believe in evolution). The very notion of "species" is just a logical construct we humans try to impose on life. ...

This brings us to bison and cows. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

The operative word is "can." Apparently, it wasn't easy to produce.

I'm not exactly versed in taxonomy. The Wikipedia article lists cattle and bison as separate species. What I want to know is why? How do they make these decisions anyway?
1024px-Serval_at_Auckland_Zoo_-_Flickr_-_111_Emergency.jpg


When fertile offspring are being used as the standard for species, "can" generally isn't taken to mean "can breeders make it happen if they try enough times?". It's more like "can a random X and a random Y's offspring of both sexes be expected to be fertile?". My sister's a mad scientist, involved with the movement to bring serval genes into the domestic cat gene pool. She kept a hybrid she'd bought for breeding 2nd-generation crosses, but she had neurological problems. (I mean that the cat kept falling over, not that my sister kept playing cat-god. :( ) Cat-serval hybrids are usually infertile, especially males.

The point is, to say house cats and servals the same species just because there are a few fertile boys (and a lot of fertile girls), usually with birth defects, doesn't make a lot of sense. House cats are more closely related to cougars than they are to servals. So why are cattle and bison listed as separate species? Well, of course in an evolutionary world species boundaries are fuzzy, and so is language itself; but the rarity of getting a fertile hybrid bull might also have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Would you agree or disagree and why. Proceed from the general to the specific. For me interbreeding is the main requirement. From the links specie does not fit below a certain biological complexity. Speci does not cover all of evolution down to early organisms.

There is genetic relatedness, humans and chimps. There is breeding compatibility. Don't see much else.

Humans and gorillas are the same species
Humans and Neanderthals are the same specie
Humans and chimps are the same specie.
Cats and camels are the same specie
White humans and black humans are the same specie
Cats and lions are the same specie
Dogs and coyotes are the same specie
Dogs and wolves are the sane specie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Taxonomy_and_evolution
 
Biological species concept -- "The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance."

We can address that question by considering the aurochs and the European bison. They coexisted in Europe before the aurochs was hunted to extinction in 1627. But they remained separate populations, and that is enough reason to consider them separate species.

That does not help with American bison very much, so I decided to see if anyone has done any molecular-phylogeny work. With Google Scholar, I found Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Bovidae, Bovinae) and the taxonomic status of the Kouprey, Bos sauveli Urbain 1937 and Combining multiple autosomal introns for studying shallow phylogeny and taxonomy of Laurasiatherian mammals: Application to the tribe Bovini (Cetartiodactyla, Bovidae)

The two papers have:
((bovines, European bison), (yak, American bison))
(bovines, (yak, (European bison, American bison)))
I've seen the hypothesis that the discrepancy can be explained by the European bison having a hybrid origin, from a female aurochs and a male steppe bison (a now-extinct species).

But both phylogenies agree on making the American bison at least as distant from domestic bovines as the European bison. Something that makes them separate species.
 
So I guess I should reveal my ulterior motive.

Sure, they are different species, but what about the "kinds" definition used by creationists?

If breeders get things exactly right, they can produce offspring that in turn reproduce.

According to the overly simplistic "brings forth" definition used by creationists, bison and cows are the same "kind."

The fact that this discussion is complicated and that the lines between species ("kinds" if you prefer) is murky is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. After all, "species" is an arbitrary mental box we use to categorize things we see in the real world. Reality doesn't particularly care which bits of it fit into which mental boxes we've made in our heads.

But in order for creationism to be true, those mental boxes have to reflect reality and reality has to point to mental boxes with clearly defined boundaries. We should not ever expect to see such blurry boundaries (or the even blurrier boundaries with ring species) if each "kind" represented a separate act of creation.

The fact that taxonomists never seem to be able to stop arguing is itself evidence of blurry boundaries and the fact that our little mental boxes are not nearly as distinct as we might like them to be. The blurry lines are themselves evidence of evolution and evidence against creationism.
 
The definition of species we were given in high school was "can they produce fertile offspring?" If yes, then they're the same species. If not, they're different species. The problem with this definition is  ring species:



Ring species make it impossible to distinguish the boundary between species. Of course, we expect this (if you believe in evolution). The very notion of "species" is just a logical construct we humans try to impose on life. Life doesn't actually give a shit if all or any of it fits into the little mental boxes we created in our heads. If all life is related, we expect the lines to be bit blurry in places.

This brings us to bison and cows. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

The operative word is "can." Apparently, it wasn't easy to produce.

I'm not exactly versed in taxonomy. The Wikipedia article lists cattle and bison as separate species. What I want to know is why? How do they make these decisions anyway?


Well, me I have a fail proof definition for species. It's not whether they can interbreed, it's whether most cattle and bisons would want to if they had the chance to try it and were left free to do it or not.

So, now, I guess you'll have to go and ask the nice bisons and the nice cows around where you live to see if you can have the beginning of an answer.

Beware that bisons don't exactly behave like cattle, though.

Please report back if you're still alive.

We're sure all entranced but...


... would a cow welcome a bison's entrance? :D


EB
 
And of course they are definitely separate species. Isn't that good enough?
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom