What If We Did Away With the Concept of Species?
Temporarily
Darwin would come for my neck.
The book that shot him into history has the very name — On The Origin of Species. Why should we do away with the word?
Species is a helpful concept. Without it, we swim in the muck of disorder. Beautiful disorder.
If I were to meet a biologist who simply describes what they see in the field without classifying it, I’d have found an obsessed naturalist. If I found one who classifies what they have found on the field, I’d have found one systematist.
I have met neither physically. Only through their books, whether alive or dead. Like Darwin, and his paradigm-altering idea.
Science grows from idea to idea, often ousting the one that preceded it in a specific domain. Kepler’s ideas ousted that of his mentor, Tycho Brahe.
Darwin’s concept ousted that of Lamarck. That is, the Darwin we are made to believe. But, do we, know how many editions he wrote of the book?
Six.
And the sixth version was a different one. In it, Darwin flirted with the ideas of Lamarck. He talked of the possibility of some of the acquired traits finding their way to our sex cells and getting to the next generation.
This idea troubled his mind. As Pusha T said it:
Trouble on mind, I got trouble on my mind
So did he completely oust Lamarck?
Denis Noble doesn’t think so. He also thinks Darwin was a neo-Lamarckian in spirit.
What does all this have to do with species anyway?
Well, it’s a brief stint in time to show you how several ideas just won’t leave the field that easily. Even if we’re to consider doing away with species, it is likely never going to be dropped.
But…
Let’s assume, temporarily, that it is.
More cogently, let’s relax our grip on the concept. We’d have to justify why we should. Let’s start there.
The textbook concept and its problems
The most famous and easily understood concept of species is the biological species concept.
It states that species are a population of organisms that naturally breed to give viable offspring.
There are several problems with this concept. Firstly, it only talks about sexual creatures. These are the ones that naturally breed. Genetic compatibility is at the heart of this concept.
Just as natural is the inability to reproduce even if one is genetically compatible. Arguably the most successful symbiont, Wolbachia spp, can make genetically compatible species incompatible even if they are considered to be in the same species group.
Secondly, the concept speaks of isolating behaviours. If you can naturally breed to give rise to fertile offspring, this behaviour isolates one group from another. But this behaviour is evident in a small fraction of organisms. The largest bulk of living creatures are asexual. They, therefore, cannot be defined as any species if we’re to use this concept.
Another blow comes from fossils. Fossils have no time to flirt and bump uglies. Since they are already dead, how would you classify them as species?
So the biological species concept, though helpful, is inadequate.
What of the other species concepts? Say the phylogenetic species concept? This one does not have the trouble of explaining fossils. They simply trace its genome and see where it lies on the genealogical tree.
It, however, faces the challenge of knowing when a species has become a true species or if it is still within the same species group. Some visual features are also essential to separate humans from chimps who have almost similar DNA.
It is better than the biological species concept in that it can include sexual and asexual organisms. But it does not create clear-cut isolating boundaries for species. While I am not opposed to open boundaries, it goes against the very basis of the concept — to find clear lines of ancestry to define a species.
The other species concept, such as the ecological species concept leaves out the species in the process. The defining forces are the environment, which can either maintain or destroy species.
A pluralist approach has been suggested. It does not completely dislodge the idea of species but welcomes people to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of these different concepts.
I have a different suggestion, one that can stir trouble in the field of evolutionary biology.
Basically,
I’ve got trouble on my mind.
Rather than species, we can have organisms instead
My definition of an organism stretches the limits of biology, but for this article, I’ll limit it to what we already know.
Organism, the very name, draws links from the word organization. Inside organisms are organs — same word root. They coordinate their activities to create organ systems. The structure of the stomach is very different from that of the bone. Yet, they have overarching goals.
The goal of every organism is to avoid annihilation. The stomach does this as it protects its most fragile part, its insides, using all the mechanisms it can wield. If it’s not the carpet of normal flora, it is the secretion of acid-breaking and cleansing portions. Sometimes, these mechanisms can fail, and the organ then starts hyper-reacting to compensate for such a flaw.
The same can be said for any other known organ, creating a wide spectrum of responses — trophic, plastic, and distorted responses. The tropic ones are hyper and hypotrophy. The plastic ones are hyper and hypoplasia. The distorted ones are dysplasia and metaplasia. This last bit has the potential to turn into cancerous tissue.
The same can be said of the organism that habours these organs. They tend to find ways of surviving in the presence of adversity. As I stated, organisms have the unifying goal of trying to avoid annihilation. If you have bad eyesight, you will squint, get a pair of spectacles, or go for eye surgery. If you don’t have eyes, you will get a walking stick.
What we call an organism is a higher level of organization — a different tier of complexity. However, the behaviour that ties all of them together is a tendency to avoid annihilation.
From an individual organism, the higher level of organization is a family. These too try to avoid annihilation. What I’ve discovered is the easiest and most reliable way of identifying an organism is by subjecting it to some form of imminent threat.
When you try to take a baby from its mother, there will be resistance. In truth, there will be a struggle. Even if the mother is aware that they are completely overpowered, they will fight.
When you try to separate a couple, there will be some resistance. If the two separate with little resistance, there was hardly an organism formed by the two. If they fight for each other, that is an organism.
The higher level of organization is the species level. They too have ways of avoiding annihilation. The first is explained by the biological species concept — they continue reproducing not just any group of organisms, but the kind that can also reproduce. This is a protective mechanism to shield the species organism from future unforeseen calamities.
Now, this is why we cannot completely do away with species, because we need it to explain the rising levels of complexity in taxonomy — the scientific field of biological classification.
A good example of a species that responded to an imminent threat, and resisted it, is humans. They did it during Covid-19. The threat must be credible, otherwise it will be read as a bluff. Examples of bluff moments are when epidemics occur. South Africa doesn’t care squat about the number of cholera cases that happen in Kenya. Neither are your biceps concerned by the ulcer that is gnawing at your intestines.
But if there is a threat to the entire level of organization, a credible threat, then the organism sticks its head out in resistance. It’s how humanity came together to generate different types of vaccines and spread them worldwide.
Viewed in this perspective, organisms can be seen in all levels of organization, in a pluralistic sense. For instance, when Rosa Parks sat on the bus, it was the birth of an organism. It grew to become the civil rights movement.
Every single moment a country fought for its independence, an organism asserted its existence. Biologists might not like how easily applicable this concept can be, but nature does not accept the theories used to define species.
Heck, it does not even acknowledge different genera or kingdoms. The radish and cabbage, from different genera, can merge to create a totally different organism. The lichen, found in all known coasts all over the world, is a portmanteau of organisms. You are a merger of species. You contain multitudes.
The concept can be troublesome, but I have already insisted:
I’ve got trouble on my mind
What I’m trying to say is…
Trouble has been brewing in my mind for eight years now.
It is the kind that can shake the field of evolutionary biology. If it shook me, it is likely to shake everyone who might consider taking this seriously.
It does not mean we can get rid of species. My book would have been irrelevant if I hadn’t had a chance to compare my theory with Darwin’s.
When you look around you, you’ll see organisms everywhere. They coordinate their activities, often without them knowing, but come alive when threatened.
In the same spirit, I might have threatened some people who hold dear their understanding of evolution. And they are bound to resist. If they didn’t, then they weren’t unified, or an organism in the first place. Or, they just don’t think my idea is a credible enough threat.
I, on the other hand, think it is trouble brewing. In my mind. At the very least.
I got trouble on my mind.
