But of course, there’s not one. A taxonomy of Interbeing, that’s kind of the point of it all. Call me a lumper and not a splitter, the splitters and their over the top desire to split the thinnest of hairs into something other, two half hairs, slightly different in mass or structure, hair a and hair b, or perhaps sub hair a and sub hair b, divergences from that original species, hair.
Or hairs, in some translations. Gosh, language could make this a tangled up mess pretty quickly.
No, I’ve always been more a lumper than splitter, and when my taxonomist colleagues got all excited about maybe discovering a “new species” because they’d come across something ever so slightly different in morphology or biochemistry or reproductive behaviors, slightly different from the “norm” for that “old species”, or simply just “other” species, I just thought “oh pulease”.
Reproductive isolation, that’s the concept the evolutionary biologists and some of the taxonomists (much more flexible folks, at least in terms of their taxonomies, not someone necessarily else’s, or maybe the less flexible, it’s hard to tell sometimes) like to use, which of course is meaningless with asexual organisms and lots of others.
So there’s like, five distinct species of Rhinoceros. Reproductively isolated? Don’t bet on it. There are so many “genetic hybrids” out there in the world of animals, and my goodness gracious, let’s not even get into the plants and fungi and microbial organisms of the world, that the entire field of taxonomy, to me, is kind of an exercise in silliness.
Splitters run amok.
What got my mind wandering down this path, once again, was an IFLS post, those ninnies who call themselves scientists, haha, which was headlined with something like “this is what the first flower, ever, looked like, scientists have reconstructed it".
I thought, “Bite me, you silly twits”, it looked different a few years ago when I was teaching, and no doubt, it will look different in a few more years when we find something new. And the image on the post is of a Magnolid, yep, an ancient line all right, but the precursor to that, and yes, there was one, was a whole lot more simple and the silly taxonomists called it a flower.
That line between the Gymnosperms, those naked seeded plants, and the Angiosperms, those plants with that ovule fully enclosed in an ovary, those flowering plants of which a Magnolid of some kind was probably among the first (how real scientists put things, BTW), that very first individual in which that carpel wrapped itself lovingly around the babe and fused, well, maybe it looked something like what “scientists reconstructed” according to IFLS, and maybe, just maybe, it didn’t.
You silly twits.
And that’s not even the point. The point is that somewhere, back in time, some taxonomist declared that a flowering plant was one with ovules fully enclosed in a carpel, whereas those more primitive gymnosperms aren’t quite there, their seeds are more exposed, and viola, we’ve got a whole new Family division we can make.
All life and even non life everywhere exists as a continuum of forms and functions.
But then, I’m a lumper.