A virus may be said to constitute a species when considered together with its female moiety.
That's because the definition of species (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) is that a species consists of related organisms able to breed with each other.
In early 2007 I received an e-mail from Jennifer S. Griffin of Princeton. Some excerpts:
"I received your article--at least a large portion of it--from a colleague," she wrote, "and I have some input of my own . . . .
“I’ll agree with your points that the male of a species donates genetic information, and the female is the recipient (although the bacterial nomenclature for male and female were just a semantic extension of the nomenclature we were already using for higher eukaryotes, such as mammals).
"However, I propose an alternative to your argument. Let’s consider the ‘entering’ virus as male. But upon entering, the virus disassembles, its genetic information is expressed and replicated, and ultimately new viruses are made. . . . the newly replicated virus particles are the recipients of genetic information—in that sense, THEY are the females.”
“. . . the virus first infects and serves as the male, donating it’s genetic information into the cellular milieu. Particles are made in response to that, and they act as the recipient of the genetic information (the female), upon which time they mature and exit the cell. If these particles are capable of infecting a naive cell, they then switch their sexual orientation and take the male role in a subsequent infectious cycle."
In regard to bacterial nomenclature being just a "semantic" extension of prior nomenclature, I had a different opinion, as I wrote to her in response:
"The famous mathematical theorem of Kurt Gödel shows us that words or 'semantics' is all we have to communicate with and to express common understanding. Mathematical symbols, for example, are shorthand for words in English or other languages. But mathematical symbols don't have any meaning that is higher than the words used to define them in the first place.
"Our words make sense or nothing makes sense, and I prefer the former. Otherwise what's the use?
"So what I'm trying to insist on is that words, such as "male," must be used in a consistent, logical fashion throughout all biological literature. That isn't simply to be fussy, but to increase understanding, clarity, and communication."
Something similar to her second point was also stated to me in a phone conversation by Dr Nancy Trun. Both women noted that, while being assembled, a virus is a recipient of DNA or RNA from the infected cell.
However, in precisely the same way, a male human is the recipient of DNA from it's parents, particularly the female parent. While actual atoms and molecules come from mom, the templates or patterns--from which the male infant's own molecules are created--comes from both parents. But that doesn't make the male embryo either a female embryo or a "bisexual" embryo.
A male infant must be born before it can mature and reach the reproductive stage. At that time it will be a DNA donor.
Similarily, prior to assembly within a cell, a virus isn't a virus. A virus can't reproduce until after it has been assembled and been "born" by exiting the cell in which it was formed.
A virus is mature and primed for reproduction only after it has left the cell. Later, if it goes full cycle, that mature virus will, like a male human, be a nucleic acid donor.
So I think my reasoning holds up.
CONTINUE
