Comments on Sentient Developments: Categorizing universal phenotypes

Oh, regarding the ichthyosaurs and dolphins: the q...

2006-09-18T12:28:00.000-04:00

Oh, regarding the ichthyosaurs and dolphins: the question I'm posing is whether or not they occupy the same ecological niche.

Thanks for the comments, guys. I find that "thinki...

2006-09-18T12:25:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the comments, guys. I find that "thinking out loud" in this manner forces me to articulate my often non-sensical thoughts. In this case, I think it may be back to the drawing board.

A major problem, as Martin pointed out, is that while such categorizations may not be irreducibly complex, they may still be complex to the point of absurdity. I'm anal enough in my thinking that I want everything organized, categorized, labelled, and defined. Biology is fuzzy enough that such macro-categorization may be implausible.

That said, I'm going to continue to think about the potential for macroecology and what Martin has dubbed the ecosome. I still believe that environmental determinism is in effect in natural selection and that there are definite patterns and limitations to the diversity of life.

It sounds like what you want is a full characteriz...

2006-09-18T00:24:00.000-04:00

It sounds like what you want is a full characterization of what I would call the "ecosome," the set of all ecosystems (my coinage follows current biological naming conventions: genome, proteome, transcriptome, etc). The problem is that there's no standard resolution at which to operate. You could be as general as "parasite," "predator," and "prey," or as specific as "things that bark as a mode of communication." The research space is ill defined, but I guess you can take on the task of formalizing it.

Also, if you analyze things without knowledge of their phylogenetic background, you miss something extremely important. A tazmanian tiger may have evolved to fill a similar niche to canines, but it was a marsupial and was actually less similar to canines than humans are.

It is incorrect to claim that ichthyosaurs and dolphins are "practically identical despite the fact that one was a reptile and one a mammal." They are similar in only the most superficial sense. The fact that one was a reptile and the other a mammal tells you that they are in fact different in important ways (for example, the cognitive states that dolphins have and ichthyosaurs lacked).

"I'm describing universal phenotype so much as a s...

2006-09-16T12:42:00.000-04:00

"I'm describing universal phenotype so much as a set of universal ecosystem niches."

Yah, no kidding. :P

Yes, they will vary greatly within niches! A 100m-tall monster living in lava is different than bacteria living in lava, even they might not have the same "role" (how do you define this?)

In terms of niche characterization, we can describe this easily based on normal physics measures - density, temperature, chemicals, homogeneity, etc.

In terms of "niche role", what do you mean? Predator, prey, etc?

"Metazoology" is a decent name.

Universal phenotypes - bipedal, quadripedal, bigger than a breadbox, spikey, smooth - what words are you looking for here.

There is an interesting idea you have here in this post but I don't think it's presented concisely/straightforwardly/bluntly enough. What are you trying for, can you describe it in a single paragraph?

Ha, it occurs to me now as I reflect on this post ...

2006-09-15T17:04:00.000-04:00

Ha, it occurs to me now as I reflect on this post that what I'm describing is not so much a universal phenotype so much as a set of universal ecosystem niches. Morphological diversity can vary for organisms with the same role within an ecological niche, but it won't vary by a significant degree.