What Even Is A Species?

[@journeytomicro]

Go to curiositystream.com/microcosmos to start streaming “The Woman Who Loves Giraffes”. Use code "Microcosmos" to sign up, just $14.99 for the whole YEAR.

[@AlterDieg8]

"Hosted by Hank Green"?

[@adamphilip1623]

Hey just a heads up, the description credits Hank as the host, I know he's got some vocal range but I'm pretty sure that's not him XD

[@jesipohl6717]

I've never seen anyone cover this topic on popular media. It's such an important part of biology that almost nobody who didn't study some form of biology at university is taught. I'd love to see something on the multiple sexes of certain species of fungus and protist and other small things!

[@kalicharanhck5367]

I have been subscribed to microcosmos for a very long time now and I cherish every video that comes up!

[@nuclearfrog306]

Agreed! This series really opens your eyes to the countless organisms around us

[@lazymass]

Here from day 1. Never missed a piece. So relaxing.

[@holyhex6520]

Been here for 6 months, very intersting stuff.

[@joshuasims5421]

(Taxonomy) provides us with a language to describe the world around us, so that we can make comparisons and find patterns. Perfectly said. Theoretical tools aren’t distillations of Aristotelian truth, they are technologies that make collaborative science possible on a large scale.

[@LimeyLassen]

I feel like the old school Linnaean system is a good fit for vertebrate animals but the farther you stray from there the more wobbly it gets. Even insect taxonomy is cracking at the seams, so I can't imagine how the bacteria people are making sense of it.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

Good but not perfect as so many argue over whether coy-wolves and coy-dogs, or even neanderthals, denisovans, and we are the same species.

[@xk445g]

@@patrickmccurry1563 plus the Interbreeding of Polar bears and grizzly bears into so called Grolar bears

[@fluffyunicorn57]

@@xk445g Yeah, a lot of different species can hybridize. Even in nature, this sometimes happens (namely with plants).

[@suelane3628]

@@fluffyunicorn57 Still, the definition of a species depends on producing fully fertile offspring. Mules (donkey stallion x horse mare) are always male & sterile yet the other way around Jennies are always female and sometimes fertile. I am 28% Neanderthal yet Neanderthals might still be a different species to the sapiens populations when they interbred. In Peru, some hybrid butterflies produced a distinct new species whilst being partially fertile.

[@fluffyunicorn57]

​@@suelane3628 That is one definition, but plenty of animals are considered different species and can still produce fertile offspring, like the polar and black bear hybrids mentioned previously and savannah and forest elephants. You are not 28% neanderthal. It is closer to 2-3% directly inherited.

[@mr.spinoza]

I wrote a lot about this concept of "human whims" in "defining species" in my Philosophy PhD thesis.

[@jtktomb8598]

I'd love to read it if it's avalaible online

[@faithsasser5679]

I'd be interested in reading it as well! I love hearing taxonomy discourse

[@brettlehman1114]

Every living thing, plant or animal have many many dormant genes that only come into play under certain or uncertain conditions (however you want to look at it). That is how life survives through the worst of consequences. I don't think we understand that if all life on the surface was completely and I do mean completely wiped out we have an ultra deep biosphere under (think fungi) the crust that would repopulate the world. The oil under the ground is not dinosaur bones and old trees, if it was we would be out of it already.

[@adobedoug2564]

Link or it didn’t happen.

[@brettlehman1114]

@@adobedoug2564 @ See the Pattern

[@manuchi_herrjea]

So good! Never had this point of view, this way to think about species. So nurturing. Thank you for sharing this!!

[@etiennem.3191]

"...at the end of the day species are only a little bit about the organisms we are looking at, they are really more about us and how we see the world" i fell in awe with all of your words in this journey. Thank you.

[@fltchr4449]

I was going to give a thought about what makes a species and then I did some searching around. There are a number of ways to define a species. Some are specific to a field of study and some attempt a generalization. Some focus across organisms and some focus across time. All of them attempt to categorize life. So, what Deboki said.

[@evilsharkey8954]

I’ve just gotta say that the “Lacrymaria microcosmosii”, or whatever that little critter was, is really cute! It reminds me of a button quail.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Well, I thought of the Coturnix quail I've raised once in awhile, too, so... yeah! 😄

[@stuckinsandiego1372]

It's nice to hear another narrator! Great job, I'd like to hear more. Don't let the haters get you down they have issues of their own.

[@jamesisagiantpeach1634]

agreed, completely escapes me why people get so wound up over a different voice-over. I love hank green as much as the next person but im not gonna throw a hissy fit if someone else happens to be reading the lines in these videos lmao

[@CheapSushi]

Disagree. It ruined the channel.

[@strifera]

Is species as the term is used for sexual life even a useful concept for non-sexual and especially unicellular life? I would have to imagine convergent evolution and polymorphisms combined with the limited range of traits being dealt with at smaller scales would make differentiating species a fool's errand. You could categorize life by a set of codified traits, but there would be no guarantee of closeness of relation based upon those traits. A genetics based approach would at least offer consistency, but differentiating species based upon some degree of genetic separation would in no way be comparable to how species are defined and classed with sexual life. It really seems like trying apply a system to an environment it wasn't defined for. I don't really see that we can or should bother.

[@Fishkhan1]

Well a big part of phylogeny is understanding the history of organisms, the evolutionary journey that they made to get where they are today. For example, two species could have almost identical traits today, but may have looked totally different from each other in past generations. So having a term like “species” is useful for keeping track of when changes occur in an organisms evolutionary timeline. But to a degree I agree with you. Evolution in real life isn’t like in Pokémon with a clearly delineated stage 1 and stage 2. We can put the label of “species” onto chunks of an organisms timeline, based on bursts in trait variation. Ultimately, it’s all just a useful shorthand to help us along; “species” isn’t representative of any real truth about the world. But then, what is?

[@PetrosSyrak]

This was an excellent video essay... Thank you for you time and effort! :)

[@nicholas6186]

Truly fascinating. How does it stretch so much? What is that green critter you can see gliding around so gracefully at 9:58?

[@Beryllahawk]

Very, very nicely done!

[@Shnarfbird]

I am surprised that the diverse morphology some individual species can reach wasn't mentioned

[@suelane3628]

I believe pigeons/domesticated Rock Doves, and dogs/domesticated win hands down when it comes to diverse morphology. Or should that be paws & wings?

[@Tijaxtolan]

Hey guys! Thanks for the content I wanted to ask if you or some microbiology enthusiast would recommend me to read the book “explore the world using Protozoa”? 🤔

[@emilydavis771]

So, amoebafication is like the microscopic version of carcinization?

[@rodchallis8031]

This was particularly beautiful.

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

'species' being much more broad and vague than we've been led to believe is something I find very heartwarming. all extant lifeforms are transitional. continuously changing, evolving, adapting; thus blurring the lines between each life form. where we draw the line is arbitrary and serves as a tool to better our understanding as humans. what makes it all the more beautiful is how nature continues to deconstruct and break through the boxes we attempt to put them in.

[@helmaschine1885]

I Love Pallas cats. So FLUFFY and such good hunters!

[@skrimper]

Pretty sure I ran one over a couple weeks ago, in hindsight it looked really weird. Didn't know they were a different species. Fascinating stuff!

[@CONGTHEGUERILLA]

@@skrimper based

[@ethantomkins1206]

Love the positivity around the new narrator!

[@theojf1985]

Wonderful article!

[@shifter1089]

I love it when we can see the cell membrane texture

[@ReaverTheSurvivalist]

I remember taking a break from this channel because it gave me an intense existential crisis at some point, but now I understand that you kinda need those from time to time hahaha.

[@ReaverTheSurvivalist]

Who replied to this comment cause I can’t see you :(

[@kencory2476]

These images are so beautiful and weird that I can't imagine how they haven't entered into my dreams (and nightmares). Maybe it's the lovely ambient music.

[@wataehebro1543]

I think I wanna be a microbiologist

[@giantsquid2]

As a microbiologist, this makes me so happy :)

[@giantsquid2]

It is a fascinating field, and there is still so much to learn.

[@skussy69]

Don't do it

[@wataehebro1543]

@@skussy69 why?

[@Dragrath1]

When asking if a definition will have exceptions the answer is yes because Gödel's incompleteness theorems use metamathematics and logic to show that any system based on rules will always have exceptions because no axiomatic system can be both complete and self consistent. You always can find a new exception to the rules which can only be resolved by adjusting the initial axioms but then still there will still be exceptions which force this process to repeat ad Infinium. This is an important and underappreciated finding as it conveys the fundamental limitation of all systems. It was from this limitation that computation as we know it was realized and the implications have been shown to apply directly to quantum mechanics. As such we need to be careful and consider that the goal of perfection is unreachable there will always be new discoveries and new information to deal with in a sense science like any systematic framework can only asymptotically approach the limit of completeness of truth. Defining species is thus a perfect example of the limitations of classification within a rigid framework.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

It's like just trying to define life that includes non-reproducing mules, but excludes fire. Even when introducing the concept of homeostasis, there are self regulating chemical reactions in certain situations and then you have to define just how much internal chemistry can wander. Ours obviously stays far more internally consistent than that of a lizard, or plant, for example.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

I kind of think that to define one category you have to be able to mostly define the more restrictive version. To define a kingdom, you should have a general grasp on phyla, so species would require breed or even individual. Those are of course hopelessly fuzzy and would require everything to be genetically sequenced, IMO.

[@PetrosSyrak]

My understanding of mathematics is inadequate to assess whether that is a correct application of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems... but, if I assume it as correct, this is a very interesting comment. Can I ask what is your background in terms of education and/or self-education?

[@Lexivor]

@@PetrosSyrak It is absolutely not a correct application of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, not even close.

[@PetrosSyrak]

@@Lexivor I sent a screenshot to a mathematician friend. He said the same.

[@judepanlilio7546]

this video is so romantic, we're all just dreaming humans bumbling about this magnificent universe trying our best to understand the wonders around us with our own little subjective opinions and categorizations.

[@منصوربنزايدآلنهيان-ق1غ]

could you plz tell me which microscopy you use?

[@antonvinther31]

Lovely video. Well done!

[@bertrc2569]

There's something I'm curious about. There are single cells, with dna. There are single cells that contain cells, all with their own dna. The next stage seems to be a multi celled animal with dna that replicates the animal. Is there an intermediate stage or an understanding of the development process for dna replicating a single cell to dna replicating a multi celled animal? Perhaps I mean the dna step from pro to eukaryotic.

[@obieobrien5883]

Always fascinating!

[@-Slinger-]

Great voice, but I still miss Hank's soothing voice.

[@kalicharanhck5367]

An appropriate ad for the first time!

[@a.l7025]

I showed my niece this video and tell her to stretch her neck out and find the food, she finished her meal.

[@KeithOlson0326]

I've found my favorite microorganism! 🤩 (Lacrymaria olor)

[@EliasTaborda]

Great video!

[@Yeet-ei5is]

If you guys ever decided to put out wall art or clothing as merchandise you would have my money

[@dougfairbanks8055]

The Voice is back.....thank you JTTM!

[@samuelharvey4925]

Always great to hear the amazing Deboki Chakravarti!

[@joebob4579]

One of best video

[@AngryKittens]

9:10 A bit of irony on a video about taxonomy. :P The specific name is NEVER written with an initial capital letter.

[@gmt-yt]

It is quite notable that we have such readily identifiable microbiota "types" (avoiding the word "species" here for rhetorical purposes) i.e., in rotifers and other exclusively-asexually-reproducing organisms. Theoretically, in Linnaean taxonomy, and literally, in genetic taxonomy, each such organism is basically its own species, as each sibling is the root of an isolated tree of descendants. And yet, there are unmistakable types appearing in many places and times without much variation. This stability suggests that such types are highly specialized, either through out-competition of superior lines or coincident evolution of parallel lines, to a kind of morphological perfection of fitness to the biomes they frequent. Otherwise, much greater variation amongst individuals would be expected... unless, there is some mechanism of non-reproductive sharing of genes that I'm not accounting for?

[@fujj-kup5662]

Local virus populations and symbiotic parasitic relationships could lead to a form of gene sharing, so to speak. This may or may not lead to similar morphological aspects, but common viral genetic lines being left behind within local species could lead to the convergence of evolution in several of the species. And we see vastly common morphological aspects from fully merged symbiotic relationships such as the appearance of mitochondria. This is of course purely speculation, as I've done no specific research on the subject.

[@Regfife]

Has anyone ever tracked a single-celled species genetic changes in real-time? For example, you've got an amoeba, it splits, the two amoebas have the same genetic sequence, those two spit, one out of the four has a mutation that sets it apart from the other clones, it splits, and starts a new genetic line. How often does that happen?

[@Dragrath1]

Would probably be far harder than that as most Eukaryotes will under the right circumstances utilize conjugation/sexual reproduction as well as varying levels of regulating DNA repair and transcription across the genome which all acts to make population dynamics and the relative diversity of relatedness far more messy than simple random mutations. In effect it likely is better described as yet another system of nonlinear partial differential equations subject to chaotic effects from differential feedback effects. This means you would most likely need a large ensemble of initially identical populations monitored in real time to describe the full assortment of possible behaviors of such a system in a rigorous mathematically testable way.

[@NullexGG]

Veritasium actually did a video on this about 8 months ago called something along the lines of “the longest running evolution experiment”

[@limiv5272]

Such an experiment will be difficult to perform because in order to sequence the entire genome of a cell you have to kill it. We do, however, know the average rate in which mistakes are made by some DNA polymerases, so we have some idea what the rate of mutation should be.

[@Bestape]

I use the word "taxonomy" for so many seemingly black/white classifications to emphasize almost all classifications get fuzzy if you look close enough, including within math!

[@archionblu]

YAY DEBOKI NARRATION! I love Hank of course but it's always great to hear Deboki :D

[@TheRogueWolf]

Species stratification seems sensible, but serious study shows that some sorts slip through such systems. So why did select samples get stuck to suboptimal sets? Some scientist said so!

[@4saken404]

Well it looks like I have a new favorite microcritter after the tardigrades. I could watch L. Olor all day long. Neato.

[@GoogleAreEnemyCombatants]

Scientists: There are collections of individual life forms that all belong to a given class based on specific criteria that each individual fulfills. These classes are called "species". Life: Cool story, bro.

[@JoNTalker]

The person who changed to Phialina caudatum: - Nah, I lost a bet. 🤷‍♂️

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

the real interesting question is how can there be multiple tiger and wolf species but not multiple human species?

[@SerenV11]

I mean, there _used_ to be other human species (neanderthalensis, floresiensis, etc.), but they died off before recorded history. We're what's left, and our populations are interconnected enough that we haven't had nearly enough opportunity to drift apart into different species; heck, there's _dramatically_ less setting different races of human apart on a genetic or phenotypical level than even different breeds of cat, to the point that uncritically trying to _make_ that comparison would be both egregiously inaccurate and incredibly tasteless. Now, if we can get out to settle different stellar systems but can't develop a way for regular, direct interstellar exchange (such as drastically extended lifespans and/or faster-than-light travel), over a looong period of time we'd start to separate into different human species from there, but that's a long way away if it happens at all.

[@jtktomb8598]

There have been, a lot

[@bernkbestgirl]

You can deconstruct the definition of species the same way you can with race, they are both imperfect categories. Isn't it interesting, though, that some classifications are deemed "unscientific" when we're using imperfect categories to begin with. There are many ways to classify lifeforms, including within a species itself, and those ways do not have to be perfect.

[@rdizzy1]

Also, it isn't usually one or the other when it comes to ways species are classified, they frequently use combinations of many various ways at once, and all of that information together is coupled to define the species.

[@Ealsante]

What a subtle, lovely argument for racism we have here. What a specimen. Such deep philosophical words, to express such a worthless and useless plague.

[@bernkbestgirl]

@@Ealsante You might benefit by having some deep thoughts for a change, might be too much to ask though.

[@PetrosSyrak]

@@Ealsante Your response is counterproductive. You need to offer arguments rather than moralizing ad hominem attacks (otherwise you are likely to turn people who are undecided against your point of view). I think that an argument here would go along the lines of: the categories we come up with need to be useful and constructive because, as this video notes, how we categorize the world this affects our thinking (we can divide, compare, etc.) and, thus, our interpretation of it. How would categorizing the human species into different “races” be useful? If anything, history has shown (and, unfortunately, there is a plethora of examples) that its results are tragic. In other words: why should we categorize races (and, even if we accept that, where do we draw the lines)?

[@pravdazvitezi8080]

ten muž i ta žena to komentují jako pohádku na dobrou noc a přitom je to horor :D fascinující tento svět který očima nevidíme :) nebo spíš díky Bohu že ho nevidíme :D

[@SuperLoops]

tbh theres no reason to expect organisms from different kingdoms, or maybe even phyla, to all be sortable into the same categories

[@FilledCircle]

Ayyy, love to hear a new narrator. Hank is great, but new narrators probably means more videos! Love it.

[@skrimper]

Not new, it's the same chick from a while back

[@funnygrunt_o7]

It’s the writer homie deboki

[@FilledCircle]

@@funnygrunt_o7 Yeah, I knew this. I recognize her voice from Hank and John's podcast! I just didn't know she did them before! My bad my bad.

[@ghostagent3552]

Speaking of which, I think that's the reason why humans might generally halt our evolution and speciation. Since no one wants to be classify as something not human and we're modifying our body structures to fit the idea of the norm that we have.

[@ghostagent3552]

@FilthyDankWastemanFabuless very much so, just look at all those people who think that 5G tower gives you cancer worse than literally being on Earth filled with sunlight.

[@technoraptor7778]

They are so cute...like a micro plesiosaur

[@stedwards311]

Deboki's voiceover is getting better, and closer to the calm tone that Hank uses on this channel. Nice job, D!

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Ok, what did you guys do with Hank? 🤨🤔 I mean, this person is ... okay, but... she's not Hank. I LOVE listening to his voice on here! Please, come back, Hank! 😥🥺

[@nightthought2497]

I've never understood why "species" categorization wasn't approached in the same way as the categorization of chemicals. Like, an organism is defined by it's features, and different common groups of features are given a name, and that is it. Rather than trying to say "this is definitely not that" just saying "this is a thing that is similar to that", and not worrying about strict borders. A lot of colonial science is finally catching up to the fact that strict categories are only as useful as their application, and most strict categories don't have useful applications. (See human and human microbiome)

[@xk445g]

probably because unlike chemicals, which just "are", all life necessarily has to come from something before it. Thus what it it behaves like is not as relevant to what it is related to. If you had red hair you'd probably say you were more similar to your blonde cousin than some red haired stranger

[@nightthought2497]

@@xk445g you seem to have misunderstood what I mean by features, and the reason for, you know, naming species. Cause from the perspective of species it doesn't matter if I am "more similar" to my blonde cousin than a red haired stranger, it matters if we are a part of a similar genetic group. So a feature of humans would be "having hair colours ranging from unpigmented to deeply pigmented with melanin". And if you were to come across a group of individuals whose hair was naturally pigmented with chlorophyll, it would be clear that they had a distinct feature set. Where we draw the lines of feature categorization is important, because too fine and it's useless, too broad and it's also useless. So if we were to talk about a colour feature, you could have a class defined by melanin pigmentation, a class defined by spiniform structural colour, and a class defined by scaliform structural colour, along with any other pigment bases used by other species, and then using a method of indicating whether or not the species has multiple forms of colouring working together. Organic chemistry uses specific words to define features of a chemical which indicate how they are related to other chemicals. Having a benzene ring on something is a pretty good indicator that it is volatile, and so by simply knowing that there is a benzene feature you can begin to draw conclusions. Naming things is very rarely about knowing who is related to who, and more about being able to identify others of the same group. Like human refers to a collection of features that are identifiable, not a person's lineage. When you get right down to it, names are about categories, not histories. For example, a dire wolf was not a wolf, it was only distantly related to the contemporary grey wolf, but due to it being in the same predator class as a grey wolf with an almost identical body plan, but bigger, we called it a dire wolf. And when it comes to fossil records and deep time, species as lineage becomes significantly more difficult to define, as the only two methods we have of determining that is through behaviour and genetics. Essentially the concept of lineage species becomes less and less useful the further you get from the present. So feature categorization seems to me to be a more useful method for determining useful data and connections across geologic time. Lineage species is definitely useful when talking about contemporary organisms for which we can do genetic and behavioral studies, but feature categorization is more useful when talking about inferred connections.

[@joeyhinds6216]

Yay Deboki!

[@NewMessage]

Ohh.. this isn't about that candy made by Reece, then.

[@crow-jane]

Reese’s are made by Hershey’s, but good try.

[@funnyguy3D]

why the hell are we getting Deboki now? what happened to Hank?

[@brendakrieger7000]

Always amazing🔬💚🦠🦠

[@Hallands.]

Can a Pallas cat even breed with an ordinary cat?

[@helmaschine1885]

Possibly? Savannah cats (that shouldn't be bred) are a mix of domestic and a type of jungle cat.

[@skrimper]

@@helmaschine1885 "savannah cats" Awfully vague. I'm assuming you mean African Servals? It's a mix of a common cat and a prairie dwelling cat. Nothing about jungles

[@rdizzy1]

@@skrimper Seems to be confusing "Chausies", which were originally formed as a hybrid between the african jungle cat (felix chaus), and a domestic housecat. There are an absolute shit ton of hybrids within feline species, occurring in the wild and in captivity, all types of them.

[@Hallands.]

Or maybe it would make more sense if you mentioned the meaning of the species names?

[@skrimper]

I saw a species once

[@KoiRun50]

Wow 13 minutes!

[@Cobbido]

Species is a social construct

[@enlnh]

For a channel I go to for relaxing and engaging content, I don't think the narrator's voice fits... Hank's voice was already a bit harsh at times but this is even less relaxing sounding. Need a narrator with a deep and calming voice.

[@giantsquid2]

Deep and calming. As in male. lol

[@enlnh]

@@giantsquid2 generally, yes. But I could listen to Shohreh Aghdashloo all day too haha she has a really interesting voice that I could see being calming depending on how she uses it.

[@andrejdamis7263]

just turn onthe subtitles and use whatever head voice you want

[@WayneManifesto]

Easy there Foucault

[@inderneilboseroychowdhury]

👍 👌 ♥ 👏

[@stax6092]

Cool.

[@Alex-mo9og]

depende de la especie ✨

[@noahmasonscience369]

I'm the first comment 😆

[@Ratciclefan]

Wow

[@clairejeansonne9800]

comments for the algorithm

[@R1D9M8B4]

Something is different about this episode... I think it's the voice...

[@anypercentdeathless]

How about a narrator who doesn't end every sentence with the same inflection.

[@databace]

Who is “us”?

[@lacrymaria_]

Happy to welcome a new member to the family!

[@williandalsoto806]

Deboki rulez!

[@ravenskeep9009]

Ok, what did you guys do with Hank? 🤨🤔 I'm sorry but I find it soooo hard to pay attention to this narrator. She makes me anxious and impatient. Nothing personal, just my little ray of spectrum showing through. :(

[@LynHannan]

Classification is in the eye of the beholder, as is interpreting data, or the bible, etc. There is no right or wrong, it is all arbitrary.

[@SWatchik]

Love having a new narrator. Am I crazy or did someone else narrate before Hank took over?

[@skrimper]

Not new, it's the same chick from a while ago

[@TheRogueWolf]

Deboki has narrated before, but she does sound a bit different now. Maybe she's been practicing?

[@a.l7025]

😁

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

Don't like the maturation. What happened to the dude?

[@RoboBlocker]

Wrong voice.

[@jimsimpson59]

★★★★★

[@davidvegabravo1579]

Just a constructive comment about the narration: please, try not to say afirmative sentences as you were asking them. Very annoying. THANKS

[@ohnoes7032]

I don't enjoy this narration style or concept. This sounds now like every other click-bait content out there, on par with " crazy things cats do". Bring back the science.

[@cichy1984]

I was hoping for a more helpful discussion of the species concept 😑

[@davidsellon4580]

No scientist seriously suggests that one way to classify species is by morphology alone. You can't get around the problem of the "biological species concept," as you call it, because species must be based on biology for the concept to be useful. You didn't even mention -- at least in the first 5 minutes, when I had to quit watching -- the most popular definition, which includes all organisms that reproduce asexually, and those with the ability to mate and produce fertile offspring (distinct from Mayr's definition in that it drops the geographic separation part and adds that the offspring must be fertile). "There are things that are like each other, and there are thing that are less like each other." You sound like you're talking to 3rd-graders.

[@FilledCircle]

Hey man, it seems like you're having a rough time. Hope your day gets better.

[@Regfife]

They are talking to a general audience, which likely includes teachers using their channel for grade-school classes. And they do get to the popular definition of species. The point of the video is to explain how this is tricky for single-celled organisms.

[@skrimper]

@@FilledCircle lol shut up you goon. He's right. This channel is for simple entertainment. Nothing wrong with that but it certainly is lackluster

[@patrickmccurry1563]

And that definition is wrong, unless you're really willing to call tigers, lions, jaguars, and leopards the same species. And certain women as different species who are infertile with their partners but not with others, due to their eggs not recognizing said partners' sperm.

[@davidsellon4580]

@@patrickmccurry1563, the different felidae species you named can usually interbreed, but the offspring are either sterile or have greatly reduced reproductive capacity.. And the example you gave regarding an individual female is irrelevant, because we are talking about species, not individuals. There will always be a certain small percentage of any species that are infertile, but this does not obviate their common species.

[@TeamBrokeOff]

love the episode, but please whisper your lines. this is supposed to be a quiet vibe

[@jamesisagiantpeach1634]

i dont know many/any of these videos that ever have their lines whispered? lol

[@ethantomkins1206]

@@jamesisagiantpeach1634 Hank green has that fun sensual voice. As if yes speaking to my soul. Still love the new narrator

[@skrimper]

Yep she's very loud and obnoxious

[@skrimper]

@@jamesisagiantpeach1634 he obviously meant soft spoken

[@jamesisagiantpeach1634]

@@ethantomkins1206 gotta agree with that ngl

[@NeonsStyleHD]

This was better when you were talking about the different species. Now it's watch this, while I go on about some shit! I used to watch all of every video when you were detailing a species. Ever since you stopped doing that, it's gone to just meh!

[@tom4ivo]

As an education channel, please teach people that zoologist is pronounced "zo-ologist", not "zoo-ologist" (the study of zoos).

[@LarsIsReal]

bring back the previous style

[@peterjohanvandyke6644]

Etc.,.ok.,.race of elves..race of mankind...then there is womankind...different..

[@skrimper]

Their DnA is only 42% similarly to Males

[@bernkbestgirl]

@@skrimper Pretty sure that's a joke comment, but I thought I'd mention that 42% DNA similarity would be incredibly low. Bananas share 44.1% of genetic makeup with humans. Perhaps you're suggesting that women are so alien to men that they are harder to communicate with than a banana, which might be true.

[@shadrsabirov6412]

no hank - no subscribtion, bye o/

[@andrejdamis7263]

no hank - new subscription;)

[@bigbrady2244]

There's no need for you to bring the nonsense of evolution into science. Why don't you stick to valid theories?

[@tcoan98]

Great video!