Biological vs Phylogenetic species concept

– Biological species – individuals from separate populations reproductively isolated (i.e. Hybridization common in waterfowl)

– Phylogenetic species = any group of individuals recognized as distinctive, reproductive isolation not required.

The Biological Species concept would yield a greater estimate due to the fact that species can hybridize (i.e. creates more species.)

Make sense?

When species hybridize under the phylogenetic species concept they arent considered a new species?

Also, what about species that are genetically diverged enough to be considered seperate species under the phylogenetic species concept but still can reproduce with eachother and so wouldnt be considered seperate species under the biological species concept?

Yes... In the process of evolution, populations often genetically adapt to changes in their environment. These changes may be biological (new food sources, new competitors, etc) as well as environmental (climate, water availability, etc.). When a population has undergone so much genetic changes that it is no longer able to interbreed with the original species from which it derives, the population can be considered a new species. This gradual transformation into another species is called phyletic evolution and this usually occurs when tere is a geographical barrier.

If species are reproducing with one another, they are similar in some way (i.e. same number of chromosomes - i.e. a horse and a donkey); this rarely happens though.

Oh crud... I just got my "I get it now" moment... it actually should be phylogentic species because hybridization suually occurs when the population of a certain species are low. MY APOLOGIES