this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34828 readers
1235 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

German wikipedia defines a biological species as a group where individuals can reproduce offspring with other members of the group, but not with individuals outside of the group.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, proper sexual reproduction only happens with Eukaryotes. Then this means that no bacteria ever reproduce offspring with other individuals, and therefore each bacterium is its own species.

But that is a meaningless definition. If each bacterium is its own species, then the categorization into species becomes meaningless.

On top of that, bacteria have "pseudosexual" horizontal gene transfer (HGT) which allows them to exchange genetic material with any other bacterium (if the circumstances are right; if i understand this correctly). So all bacteria are in a single species if you look at it that way.

I understand that bacteria normally don't undergo HGT with all other bacteria because some might only open up at hot temperatures while others only open up in cold temperatures - thus creating a natural barrier. But it is also my understanding that while such barriers exist, they're not permanent and can be overcome in nature (without human intervention) for example due to certain virus infections and similar circumstances.

Long story short:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just consider that the concept of "species" only apples to eukaryotes and not to bacteria at all? Wouldn't that save all of us a headache? Maybe we should consider bacterial species to be less strict that eukaryotic species. Maybe we should describe bacteria by their individual features and give that group a name, instead of expecting that diverging lines of evolution cannot ever come together again.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I prefer ‘species agnosticism’ when it comes to bacteria, most of the time. It doesn’t matter very often what species something is in environmental scenarios like biogas digesters or composting. Their general function is more important than exactly what species they may be according to current schemes.

The only folks who need to identify ’species’ in bacteria are in medical fields, and even then the real concern is whether the bacteria of interest carry specific genes, such as EPEC/EHEC in E. coli. E.coli is everywhere, but only some types carry the genes that make them dangerous.

So my answer is ‘meh’. It’s useful to be able to categorize things, but it can also become an unproductive obsession. Use the classification scheme that works for your application domain. Leave the gnat-straining and bean-counting to the academics.

yeah you put it very well, the function and genes of bacteria are more important than their species; that's what i'm saying. Thank you for clarifying :D

[–] chaosCruiser 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The whole idea of a species is flawed, but not useless. Treat it accordingly.

Humans just love to put things into neat and tidy boxes even though reality is messy and complex. Real life just will never fit perfectly into a box you define, unless you make the box as big as the universe. Broad definitions like that aren’t very appealing to humans, so they prefer narrower definitions instead. This approach comes with a problem - edge cases.

The concepts of a species is one of these problematic definitions. It’s too narrow to work perfectly, but it’s still useful as rule of thumb sort of idea.

Humans have made countless definitions that are expected to squeeze a kraken sized complexity into a tiny cardboard box. It’s never going to work perfectly, but it can still work well enough to be useful. I suggest you treat the whole idea a of a species as a fuzzy concept without any exact borders. As soon as you treat it as an exact thing, you will run into problems.

What is or isn’t alive? What belongs into this particular species? It’s a but fuzzy, and the closer you get to the edges, the fuzzier it gets. Don’t expect to find any clarity there. Instead, you can expect strict definitions to fail in places like that.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The whole idea of a species is flawed

Wait, are you talking about bacterial species here or all species, including eukaryotic ones? because you make it sound as if you're referring to eukaryotic species too.

[–] chaosCruiser 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

We can’t even give a solid definition of what life is, let alone how to divide that into species in a reliable and consistent way. Biology is a really messy science and strict definitions just don’t cut it. There are always exceptions and edge cases that violate the rules we come up with. So yes, this applies to all life, not just eukaryotes. Bonus points for those who can name situations where we’ve tried to classify complex things and failed to come up with anything that works perfectly.

Biology is just far too complex for simple rules like that. Whatever appealing definitions you come up with are always rough and inaccurate. If you expect a biology definition to always work in every situation, you’re going to be disappointed. This isn’t the kind of simple matter where simple definitions are possible. Spoiler: there are many.

[–] porksnort@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Indeed. In intro biology they teach species concepts and then the minute you advance to the next level you are slammed with all the flaws and fuzziness inherent in the definitions.

Biology is, frankly, the most difficult science for this very reason. Fuzzy categories are necessary for us to start understanding complexity, but the categories can become a hindrance too when you are really trying to push into new territory.

Treat all classification schemes as provisionally useful, but never mistake them for reality.

[–] chaosCruiser 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Biology is actually heading in a very good direction now that DNA sequencing is cheap, proteomix is being established and so on. Psychologists aren't so lucky with their fuzzy fMRI images and extra fuzzy terms and largely opinion based models. At the moment, the complexity of the human mind is just overwhelming and psychologists are struggling to produce even the simplest qualitative results.

While biology can't really categorize species in a consistent manner, at least we know what the basic building blocks are. In psychology, all you have is a collection of conflicting opinions about what the basic blocs could be. Check back in a 100 years and pretty much everything has been redefined several times. I can imagine it's a bit like what happened with taxonomy once we started sequencing everything.

[–] ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

The podcast Let’s Learn Everything did an episode on this- the answer is that most fields of study under biology have different definitions based on their needs - there’s about 20 or so definitions in use currently.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

It's based on phylogeny trees. Just search up the phylogeny tree of bacteria and you will know what I'm talking about it's DNA relationships.

Edit: two species would be different because their 16S or 23S rRNA is different.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

If I had to offer my own definition, I’d say populations belong to the same species if they evolve a similar range of responses to all selection pressures (assuming they can't otherwise be distinguished by morphology etc).

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Source

Alt textFortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB?

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

There’s a key difference, though: standards just affect the way we and our devices interact with each other, but taxonomy affects the way we interpret the natural world. There’ll always be an arbitrary element to it, but we can try to make distinctions that best correspond to objectively real differences (to “carve nature at the joints”, as Plato put it).