let's debate animal apartheid?

[animartco]

I know the 'powers that be' in WAB are a bit nervous of this subject, and I hope no one will refer to human racial issues, but stick to the point...which is the question, Is it better to let a species become extinct, or to let it interbreed thereby saving its genes?
At the moment most of the big names in conservation seem to think that endangered species should stay where they are and have a virtual -or real hermetic seal built around them to prevent any sort of interference or change. THIS IS NOT HOW NATURE WORKS. Anone dare to discuss?

[eeyore]

I dare - but i'm not getting drawn into an argument - my feeling is that while interbreeding is sometimes useful to the survival of the species, it also sometimes isnt and can result in the extinction you hope to avoid, particularly if its genes are swamped by another species to the point where species A ceases to exist

although the genes may survive as resessive genes in species B the species itself is then extinct.

The question then becomes whether we should try to halt extinctions or just let the endangered species go - and this is not a simple question as all conservation management is to some degree artificial, if everything was left to nature we would have a very different countryside to the one we have today.

[RKB]

You have no guarantee that you are 'saving its genes'. For a start, you will lose 50% straight away unless they are shared by the other parent. Also, if the other parent's genes are dominant and the species in question is recessive, then they will not be expressed and will quickly disappear. Finally, what happens after the first generation cross? If the hybrid then mates with a full member of the other species, then even more genes will be lost.

If you take the Ruddy and White-headed Ducks as an example, a first generation hybrid might be 50% White-headed and 50% Ruddy. But what if those hybrids mate with Ruddies? Offspring will then have only 25% of the White-headed genes at most. It will be even less if the 50% genes that are passed on are all Ruddy ones. That's after just two pairings when you started off with full species. Do this a few more times and you may soon be down to virtually no White-headed genes left on the planet. Amplify this over time, where Ruddies are numerically far superior (being more flexible in breeding requirements and more productive), and you will quickly lose the genes of the White-headed population.

Which is why Ruddy Ducks were culled.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by animartco

At the moment most of the big names in conservation seem to think that endangered species should stay where they are and have a virtual -or real hermetic seal built around them to prevent any sort of interference or change.

Please give examples to justify this claim, for "most of the big names in conservation".

[AshLee]

Originally Posted by animartco

I know the 'powers that be' in WAB are a bit nervous of this subject, and I hope no one will refer to human racial issues, but stick to the point...which is the question, Is it better to let a species become extinct, or to let it interbreed thereby saving its genes?
At the moment most of the big names in conservation seem to think that endangered species should stay where they are and have a virtual -or real hermetic seal built around them to prevent any sort of interference or change. THIS IS NOT HOW NATURE WORKS. Anone dare to discuss?

I have my idea of an ideal world, and it's not this one. It doesn't exist. Human interference exists everywhere on the planet. And everything interconnects. Life would take care of itself, and in my ideal world, would be left to do just that. But we've interfered so much that I think we need to do what we can to preserve as much "natural" habitat as possible. And that is what we should put most of our effort into. And if that is a success, then wonderful.

And if it's not, in answer to your question, I'd let nature decide, within reason (I'm not making reference to any particular situation). Or we'll have a seemingly eternal battle on our hands. Money that could be spent on preserving the habitats that we had will be wasted. And how can this battle ever be won?

So in many circumstances, I think genetic material should be entitled to "make its own mind up". Why not let it have its wicked way? After all, do we really have a choice? It taught us everything we know and no doubt it still has some tricks up its sleeve.

[earthdragon64]

It's a tough one, we have to remember that extinction is a part of evolution, otherwise there would be an awful lot less humans running around whilst trying to avoid being eaten by T-rexes.

Where a species has been put under pressure by human interference, my personal opinion is that we should make reasonable efforts to reverse the problem.

Defining "reasonable" is always going to be difficult though, and there could also be conflicts that doing something to benefit one species could cause a detrimental effect on others. Which species should get the help in that kind of conflict? Unfortunately I think it would often boil down to the "cutest" one, not neccesarily the one that's most likely to be saved.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by animartco

............. Is it better to let a species become extinct, or to let it interbreed thereby saving its genes?
......... THIS IS NOT HOW NATURE WORKS. ......

This question is either meaningless or needs major rewording. The generally accepted definition of a species is that animals (some plants may differ and other organisms without sexual reproduction are clearly excepted) of a species will breed to produce viable offspring, not with members of another species. i.e. species cannot interbreed to provide viable progeny. Interbreeding seldom occurs in nature and if it did it, since any offspring would be infertile, it wouldn't serve the purpose mentioned here.

I suspect that the question is about subspecies or varieties, races, populations?

Can we clarify this, perhaps have an example?

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

The generally accepted definition of a species is that animals...of a species will breed to produce viable offspring, not with members of another species. i.e. species cannot interbreed to provide viable progeny.

There is more than one definition of a species, and this thread is a spill-ovr from another concerning Ruddy and White-heaed Ducks (which are classified as separate species yet can produce fertile hybrids). Quite a few birds can hybridise to produce fertile hybrids, yet are still classified as a full species (many of the Anser geese, Carolina and Black-capped Chickadees, many Larus gulls).

I did suggest on the other thread that the OP didn't get hung up on the word 'species' and think of things in terms of 'forms' and biodiversity instead. Rather offensive use of the word 'apartheid', too - I don't see much comparison between an oppressive social system that dehumanised an entire group of people, and shooting some ducks.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by RKB

There is more than one definition of a species, and this thread is a spill-ovr from another concerning Ruddy and White-heaed Ducks (which are classified as separate species yet can produce fertile hybrids). Quite a few birds can hybridise to produce fertile hybrids, yet are still classified as a full species (many of the Anser geese, Carolina and Black-capped Chickadees, many Larus gulls).

I did suggest on the other thread that the OP didn't get hung up on the word 'species' and think of things in terms of 'forms' and biodiversity instead. Rather offensive use of the word 'apartheid', too - I don't see much comparison between an oppressive social system that dehumanised an entire group of people, and shooting some ducks.

Ah, a birdy thing! I'm inclined to agree with you in all respects. I agree about the misuse of 'apartheid'.
The other business seems to be a matter of misuse or misunderstanding of the word 'species'. When I responded earlier I suspected that this would revolve on bird genetics/systematics: ornithological taxonomists are the arch 'splitters' creating new species at the drop of a hat, especially in Europe. I'm not a systematist but suspect that many so-called species are sub-species, many 'sub-species' local variants &c .....

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

When I responded earlier I suspected that this would revolve on bird genetics/systematics: ornithological taxonomists are the arch 'splitters' creating new species at the drop of a hat, especially in Europe. I'm not a systematist but suspect that many so-called species are sub-species, many 'sub-species' local variants &c .....

Indeed - it goes in and out of fashion. In the 30s-40s there was a frenzy of splitting, then they all got lumped again in the 60-70s, then split again in the 80s-90s, and now the Americans are lumping some of them again (thinking of Crossbills here). The difference these days is that there is money and politics involved - if the Scottish Crossbill is downgraded to a subspecies of the Common or Parrot Crossbill, then the legal obligation for the UK to conserve it as an endemic full species will also disappear. That means a loss of funding/impetus for protecting its habitat too, so those with a vested interest in those forests (such as ownership of a reserve) probably wouldn't like to see that happen!