More evidence, and it basically supports what I've said.
In arguing that almost all contemporary biologists
adopt the same general species concept, I do not mean to
imply that there are no conceptual differences in their
views on species. Differences of opinion are numerous
and include such important issues as whether species can
persist though lineage-splitting events, whether more than
one successive species can exist in an unbranched lineage,
and whether asexual organisms form species. Numerous
differences also exist concerning mechanistic hypotheses
about the origin and maintenance of species in terms of
geography, demography, genetics, gene flow, drift, and
natural selection (see Bush, 1975; Tempieton, 1981). But
all these manifest differences do not concern the concept
of the kind of entity designated by the tetmspecies•there
is virtually universal agreement that species are segments
of population-level evolutionary lineages.
Whatever I've written is directly derivable from the bolded bit & is compatible with it (since, in different cases, segments of lineages are represented by interfertile populations, or clones, or variants thereof) . As far as the previous assertion of "anything goes" wrt species is concerned, there is substantive evidence that whatever extant definitions exist are congruent to the bolded bit, firstly, and secondly that they all reduce to the same thing, but only focus on different bits, none of which includes how long a lineage exists or whether it can spread.
Full paper here
http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/1 ... sForms.pdf
As it would appear, I'm not writing crap, what I've written is perfectly in-tune with what is scientifically the case.
