[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing that all things we call species fit the definition to a T - I'm arguing that there are such things as species under the definition, and that most of the animals on the planet can be classified as such. Because of the lack of intermediates, animals can be classified into distinct categories due to their reproductive isolation. The way they got here is a continuum, but at this point in time they are distinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were actual joints it wouldn't matter if the intermediates were current or extinct. That's why rings species and dogs/wolves and fossil sequences are so frustrating under the 'species' approach... it's not an actual joint it's an attempt to create a joint ( which does usually work, but only by luck of extinction).

I may be explaining it poorly, have you read Dawkins comments on 'the illusion of discontinuity'? I was surprised when I ran into it because I didn't expect a biologist to support the claim that 'species' is an arbitrary boundary like most human created categories, and even fuzzier-than-normal. I've been yelled at when I've raised it in the past.

luckyme