I noticed that there are some arguments about the different tegu "species" out there that are named based on their subtle or distinct differences in appearance. Blue, Chacoan, white head, etc.
I saw many long threads arguing about these differences. But honestly it's all just semantics! I mean I've seen some white people with small noses and some white people with large noses. Are they different species, or races, or morphs? We can always tack on a name and call it something. "Big nose whites" is now a new morph of the human species! Don't like the word morph? Well let's make up a new word, "Marph"!
I mean even the word "species" is made up by people long ago to categorize certain differences we manage to observe. If we remove that word we can all just be called animals, then if we remove the word "animal" we can all be called "objects".
Rules have been made up by people who practice "science" on how to differentiate between "species"(among many other things). So you can't call a "Blue" or "Chacoan" a different species based on these rules that "science" have defined for using the word "species". But if you do see a difference in characteristics, there's nothing wrong with tagging a different word/term/category to it. e.g. I can call a guy a "big nose white" based on his appearance if I like, that's not a new "species" however because the rules for determining species have already been defined but since it is a characteristic you observe you are free to tag a new word to it. I don't know what defines a "morph" but if there's already a definition of "morph" then make up a different word. It's all just semantics! When people argue about these things they are simply arguing about predefined rules. But you if don't want to comply to the rules people of "science" made up, you can reassign a different meaning to the word "species". Then you can be correct when you call a Blue tegu a different species, but only on your own definition of the word "species". However, there is a reason why rules are defined in communication protocols. It is so that everyone knows what each other is talking about, for the sake of communication, integrity in definition needs to exist.
From what I see, all these argument just boils down to the fact that the more scientific people here simply understand these predefined rules better, and the others are just not describing things they observe based on these predefined rules. But in the end, they see the same thing. A guy with a big nose... well he has a big nose!
I saw many long threads arguing about these differences. But honestly it's all just semantics! I mean I've seen some white people with small noses and some white people with large noses. Are they different species, or races, or morphs? We can always tack on a name and call it something. "Big nose whites" is now a new morph of the human species! Don't like the word morph? Well let's make up a new word, "Marph"!
I mean even the word "species" is made up by people long ago to categorize certain differences we manage to observe. If we remove that word we can all just be called animals, then if we remove the word "animal" we can all be called "objects".
Rules have been made up by people who practice "science" on how to differentiate between "species"(among many other things). So you can't call a "Blue" or "Chacoan" a different species based on these rules that "science" have defined for using the word "species". But if you do see a difference in characteristics, there's nothing wrong with tagging a different word/term/category to it. e.g. I can call a guy a "big nose white" based on his appearance if I like, that's not a new "species" however because the rules for determining species have already been defined but since it is a characteristic you observe you are free to tag a new word to it. I don't know what defines a "morph" but if there's already a definition of "morph" then make up a different word. It's all just semantics! When people argue about these things they are simply arguing about predefined rules. But you if don't want to comply to the rules people of "science" made up, you can reassign a different meaning to the word "species". Then you can be correct when you call a Blue tegu a different species, but only on your own definition of the word "species". However, there is a reason why rules are defined in communication protocols. It is so that everyone knows what each other is talking about, for the sake of communication, integrity in definition needs to exist.
From what I see, all these argument just boils down to the fact that the more scientific people here simply understand these predefined rules better, and the others are just not describing things they observe based on these predefined rules. But in the end, they see the same thing. A guy with a big nose... well he has a big nose!
