Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Understanding the different types of organisms
Published on August 13, 2005 By Draginol In Pure Technology

Most people are aware that politics can affect how history is recorded. But every scientific endeavor suffers from such things.  In biology, zoology has gone through the same sort of thing.  When you are dealing with anything subjective (and lots of things in science is subjective) politics come into play.

And few things are more subjective than organism classification.  With that said, zoologists have a basic classiciation system. It's not perfect, but it is accepted and that's what matters.

Lay people tend to mix up the different types of classifications on a regular basis.  So here is a chart of the basic ordering of creatures on Earth:

 

The basic unit of organism is species.  If creature A and B and reproduce together and produce offspring that can reproduce, then they are the same species. If they can't, they are different species.

Hence, a Poodle and a St. Bernhard are the same species -- they can (unfortunately) reproduce. 

Moving up you have similar animals.  A Lion and a Tiger are both types of cats. But they are different species. They cannot reproduce viable offspring.

Further up you have Families.  Dogs and Cats are actually quite similar.  But they're obviously not very closely related.  But they are in the same basic family of animal.  They are, a lot more similar than say a Cat and a Mouse or a Dog and a cow.  Dogs and Cows are both in the same order.  They're both types of mammals. 

Next up you have classes. Now you're really talking different things.  Mammals and birds are a lot more similar to one another than say Insects.  So Mammals and birds would be part of the same Phylum and Insects would be in their own.

And then finally you have Kingdom.  Animals and Plants for example. There's also fungus, and protistas which should be called "Pretty weird stuff".  And there's even one above this not regularly referenced but if you're really geeky like me you can talk about and that's Domain where you have Bacteria, Archaea, which I've never seen as they live in extreme environments. They were probably amongst the first lifeforms.  We're part of the domain Eukarya incidentally.

That said, once you get outside species, things get more subjective.  For instance, Bacteria, why should they get their own Domain? Couldn't they be argued as a plant? Admittedly, I doubt there are message forums where PhDs sit there and have flame wars over the classification of bacteria.


Comments
on Aug 13, 2005
Tigers and lions can produce tigons and ligers, and these have been shown to reproduce as well. But usually these animals do not mingle in nature, so mixtures are only found in zoos.
on Aug 13, 2005
And there's even one above this not regularly referenced but if you're really geeky like me you can talk about and that's Domain where you have Bacteria, Archaea, which I've never seen as they live in extreme environments.


Kingdom Monera, I believe....or at least it seems familiar....I may have spelled it wrong.

~Zoo
on Aug 13, 2005
I gotta ask -- are there people in North America who haven't been exposed to basic biology? At least everybody who's finished high school has seen this already, right?
on Aug 13, 2005
At least everybody who's finished high school has seen this already, right?


I went over this my freshmen year...

~Zoo
on Aug 13, 2005

Tigers and lions can produce tigons and ligers, and these have been shown to reproduce as well. But usually these animals do not mingle in nature, so mixtures are only found in zoos.

Really? They produce viable offspring? That's definitely very interesting, I'll have to look into that.  It may be that my example was flawed.

on Aug 13, 2005

I gotta ask -- are there people in North America who haven't been exposed to basic biology? At least everybody who's finished high school has seen this already, right?

They're supposed to. But from reading some of the forum posts on this site, it's clear that many people have forgotten some of this.

on Aug 14, 2005
I managed to finish a college degree without a single course in biology, and I missed out on it in High school because I dropped out. I *STILL* manage to understand the theory of evolution, and don't have any problem being able to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion (that evolution is an accurate depiction of how species as we know them came to be). Of course, I HAVE taken Geology, and so I've dealt with the evidence directly there. It's pretty much impossible to study any branch of science and maintain disbelief in evolution. Those who do are maintaining dual belief systems, and are either not good scientists, or not good christians, because they're faking one or the other.
on Aug 16, 2005
True, too often politics has more to do with science than actual scientific method and observation of cause and effect. Anyone who sits in on a "peer review" will see much more politics than science.

I'm still wondering though, how an organism with DNA consistant with a specific species, and a metabolism consistent with that species can be anything other than that species... the answer? Politics. ;~D
on Aug 17, 2005
For the record, Cows and Yaks also produce viable offspring, though interestingly enough if you get a 3/4 cow or a 3/4 Yak, they're no longer viable.