2007-12-07 18:07:51 · 11 answers · asked by realchurchhistorian 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
Maybe not in defining, but definitely in carrying on the species. No little ones, no future species. It's that simple.
2007-12-07 18:11:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. If what you mean is "are species separated by abilty to produce offspring with one another?" then no. There can be interspecies breeding. But of course that also depends on the view of a species. There is no defined answer to the question "What makes different species?" There are only a widely accepted number of guidelines that experts agree on. I guess the best way to answer this is in context. If this is for a class, find out whatever the teacher or the textbook say about what a species is or isnt, then make your own judgment. But since you said "key factor" I am only saying no because I dont see there being one main factor. Just one of many factors.
2007-12-07 18:18:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ability to produce offspring that could mate with similarly crossed animals to produce viable and fertile offspring used to be a determining factor for labelling something as a separate species. For example, crossing a horse with a donkey yields an infertile offspring hybrid. So they are separate species. Examples of this are abundant. However, recent advances in DNA replication and whatnot have shown that animals that were considered to be the same species are genetically quite different. Also, animals that wouldn't normally be near each other can breed and produce viable offspring. Since they haven't been near eachother, there is no biological "wall" to reproduction. An example of this is that Zebra can mate successfully (especially through Artificial Insemination) with horses, though they are 2 separate species.
So the inability to breed or produce fertile offspring is one of many guides as to whether an animal is considered a separate species.
2007-12-08 04:36:29 · answer #3 · answered by boo2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many separate species can mate and reproduce but most do not reproduce in the next generation yet some do as in the cases of jennies and mules that give birth.
2007-12-08 05:26:48 · answer #4 · answered by James O 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. it is very important. Any species of animal that is fertile survive to reproduce and keep their species going, along with contributing to the food chain. According to Dalton, natural selection occurs and nature will choose the most "fit" animals to survive and reproduce, thus optimizing their survival chances and to insure that those characteristics are passed down to the next generation
2007-12-07 18:17:03 · answer #5 · answered by BarnBratWGC 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, people used to just focus on survival strength but you can be as strong and survive as long as you want, if you don't get any, you won't be having babies and passing along those genes! The Red Queen by Matt Ridley is a good book that gives good examples about that. It's not just the ability but how they go about attracting mates and rearing healthy families. Enjoy breeding!
2007-12-07 18:14:25 · answer #6 · answered by J B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the INABILITY to reproduce will certainly limit your chances of being defined.
To be able to reproduce is one part of the definition of life, NOT of a species.
2007-12-07 18:12:32 · answer #7 · answered by De Deuce 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
The TRUE key is protecting the species so they can always continue to reproduce.
2007-12-07 18:11:45 · answer #8 · answered by The Knowledge Doctor 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
all species reproduce, so I don't see how that would separate or define any two species.
2007-12-07 18:12:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say it would be one of them, since without some method of reproduction, whether sexual or asexual, a species would completely die out.
2007-12-07 18:11:47 · answer #10 · answered by bolinger81380 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋