Stephen J Maxwell

Verified

Stephen verified their affiliation via an institutional email.

Learn more

Verified

Stephen verified their affiliation via an institutional email.

Learn more

• AdvDipA, BA, BA/BSc, MSc, MPhil, PhD
• Doctorial Student at James Cook University

The idea of a deep homology has greatly influenced the development of new taxonomic theory. In particular, Conway Morris (2015, p. 3) conceptionalisaton of evolution as “endlessly exploratory, probing the vast spaces of biological hyperspace”. However, the cleverness of Runes is the concept of convergences, these are not used as means of deconstructing Darwinism, rather stretching a band around clustering of favourable evolutionary potentialities.

The text extols through with examples of how laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest draws the evolution of taxa inextricably towards the idea of a concentrated peak of benefit. If we consider the different phyla, Conway Morris presents convergences between many. In doing so he argues for a fundamentally guiding pattern or evolutionary string upon which taxa revolve, the structural essence of Maxwell et al (2020).

If we accept Conway Morris at face value then all life has at it core a level of predestination. At this point Morris becomes dangerous to the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy of randomness in the face of mathematical impossibility, then even Dawkins said he does not do numbers, as if to ask for blind faith to the ultimate answer. So sadly I predict the ideas contained within the “Runes of Evolution” are for a time when there is balance in the debate, and where maybe we argue for the attributing the world around us to an overarching ground plan, call it intelligent design if you must, but to whom or who to attribute? May I suggest Τύχη?

Morris, S.C. (2015) The ruins of evolution: How the Universe became self-ware. Tempeton Press.

"The choice of species rank over form or

subspecies for this taxon reflects a more

nuanced understanding of the role of infraspecific

ordering. We consider forms to reflect a

consistent variant within a wider population. ...

Páll-Gergely et al. (2019) argued that the rank

of subspecies was arbitrarily applied based on

“human factors”. These factors reflect the

choices that the taxonomist has to make with

regard to the differentiating of taxa in terms of

morphology, homology and the pre-existing

taxonomic hypotheses (Páll-Gergely et al. 2019).

However, Páll-Gergely et al. (2019) offer no

practical solution to how subspecies should be

identified; rather they are seeking a rule to

“prohibit taxonomic decisions resulting in

uneven subspecies rates across taxonomic

groups.” This raises the serious question of what

is a “subspecies”, and in particular once you

move away from the biological species concept

how do you demarcate between subspecies and

what is considered a full species. We argue that

subspecies should be restricted to cryptic

species, where the difference between taxa are

grounded on the unobservable genetic distance;

there is no morphological difference and

typically no test for biological isolation between

isolated populations or their clines. That is, we

argue that the rank of subspecies should be

applied to reflect genetic differences within a

species complex, rather than used to distinguish

unique taxonomic entities with observable

differences. These are species. Subspecies

therefore, is a rank that should be restricted to

cryptic species. This approach would provide a

level of taxonomic stability to the species rank

and at the same time address the issues

identified in Páll-Gergely et al. (2019). Where a

taxon can be readily identified based on

observable differences we argue, as the case of

the species herein, that the rank of species is

justified." (Maxwell and Dekkers 2019, Festivus, 51(3), 171- 176).