Difference between revisions of "Talk:Species"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DrSandstone (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::Tigers and lions are different species, but they can breed. Ability to reproduce does not define species. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT) | ::Tigers and lions are different species, but they can breed. Ability to reproduce does not define species. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
::They can, indeed, produce offspring, but such offspring are unable to produce more because they become infertile, same goes with donkeys and horses. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 16:11, 2 September 2008 (EDT) | ::They can, indeed, produce offspring, but such offspring are unable to produce more because they become infertile, same goes with donkeys and horses. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 16:11, 2 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::That is, actually, untrue. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:27, September 2, 2008
"A German Shepherd and a Beagle can mate, because they are different breeds within one species. " - There is no such thing a dog, because it's still a wolf? :) NewCrusader 15:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Dogs were created by God, as were wolves. The relation between them is only because God willed it so. JohnI 16:00, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Tigers and lions are different species, but they can breed. Ability to reproduce does not define species. -DrSandstone 16:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- They can, indeed, produce offspring, but such offspring are unable to produce more because they become infertile, same goes with donkeys and horses. JohnI 16:11, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- That is, actually, untrue. -DrSandstone 16:27, 2 September 2008 (EDT)