> >>> You seem to be arguing that humans vs. chimps are obviously less
> >>> "speciated" compared to, say, horses vs. donkeys or even lions vs.
> >>> tigers based only on gross numbers of mutations without any
> >>> consideration to the quality of those mutations.
> >> You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

> > Wasn't it you who wrote:

> >      "Some closely related species can't produce viable offspring.
> > Some distantly related species can. There is no particular correlation
> > between closeness of relationship and hybridization."

> Yes.

> > Upon what do you base your measure of species "relationship"
> > distance?  Is it based on an absolute count of mutational differences?
> > Or, do you take into account some qualitative functional aspect of the
> > mutational differences?

> By "closeness of relationship", I mean the literal sense of recency of
> common ancestry. One can certainly estimate this using genetic
> distances. Qualitative functional aspects are irrelevant to any
> estimate. Neutral markers are the best choice. When I say, for example,
> that humans and chimps are more closely related than horses and donkeys,
> that's a claim that the human-chimp common ancestor is more recent than
> the horse-donkey common ancestor.

> None of this has to do with being "less speciated", whatever you mean by
> that.