Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Carl Zimmer of the New York Times gives us this story: DNA Study Reveals the One and Only Wolf Species in North America.
“The first large study of North American wolf genomes has found that there is only one species on the continent: the gray wolf. Two other purported species, the Eastern wolf and the red wolf, are mixes of gray wolf and coyote DNA, the scientists behind the study concluded.
The finding, announced Wednesday, highlights the shortcomings of laws intended to protect endangered species, as such laws lag far behind scientific research into the evolution of species.”
Bridgett M. vonHoldt of Princeton University who studies the genome of the canids (mammals of the dog family – Canidae) – that is domestic and wild dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals and dingoes — in her most recent study, highlighted by Zimmer, concludes that all North American wolves are genetically one species with variants, like the Eastern Wolf and the Red Wolf, being hybrids between Grey Wolves (Canis lupus) and the Coyote (Canis latrans).
Interesting, but so what?
Two months ago, in the same newspaper, Joanna Klein, writing in the science section’s Trilobites series, gave us: Red Wolves Need Emergency Protection, Conservationists Say.
“Conservation groups submitted an emergency petition last week requesting that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service increase protection for the only wild population of red wolves left in the world.
Red wolves, which are bigger than coyotes, but smaller than gray wolves, are the only wolf species found completely within the United States.”
….
“It also seeks an upgrading of the status of red wolves, which are endangered, from “nonessential” to “essential.” The change in status would grant reserved habitat to the species and require consultations with biologists over how changes to land use would affect the wolves.”
At the end of May, conservationists were lobbying the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to declare the Red Wolf an “essential” species, in part because the “North Carolina’s Wildlife Resources Commission, a state-run conservation agency funded in part by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, which has called the [federal Red Wolf Recovery Program] a failure and claimed that wolves have damaged private land.” The details of the program themselves are a matter of controversy and conflict between state and federal biologists.
Carl Zimmer reports that “The gray wolf and red wolf were listed as endangered in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s and remain protected today, to the periodic consternation of ranchers and agricultural interests. In 2013, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the Eastern wolf as a separate species, which led officials to recommend delisting the gray wolf. Conservationists won a lawsuit that forced the agency to abandon the plan.”
Furthermore, vanHoldt’s study not only identifies the three canids (Grey, Eastern and Red wolves) as a single species (albeit, the latter two are wolf-coyote hybrids), but her paper states bluntly:
“The red wolf was listed as an endangered species in 1973, initiating a captive breeding program by the USFWS. The program began with 12 of 14 founding individuals that reproduced, selected from a panel of several hundred captured individuals that were thought to represent the ancestry spectrum ranging from coyote to pure red wolf and various admixtures of the two forms. These 12 founders were considered to be pure red wolves based on phenotypic characteristics and the lack of segregation of “coyote-like” traits in their offspring. The descendants of these founders defined the ancestry of the several hundred red wolves produced by the captive breeding program and have been the source for a single reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina.”
The sad fact is that not only is the Red Wolf known to be a hybrid of the Grey Wolf and the Coyote, and has always been since it was first identified and studied, believed to have originated in the last century, but the Red Wolves of North Carolina are a human created species, created in an intentional federally financed breeding program, similar to the creating and breeding of dog breeds. Well intended but hardly the purpose of the Endangered Species Act
vanHoldt and her team use their study to encourage the extension of the Endangered Species Act to cover such hybrids.
Why write of this little biologists’ tiff here?
To me, it demonstrates how far astray science and the science/policy interface can drift when the science itself is vague, blurry — based on words and concepts that do not have solid, agreed-upon definitions that are based on solid science understandings.
The word in this story is SPECIES. If you think that there is one and only one common and agreed upon definition of the word species in the world of biology, you have been criminally under-educated or remain willfully misinformed. For a brief glimpse of the controversy, you can look at the entirely unauthoritative Species Problem wiki page, which states “there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.”
Several years ago, I personally attempted to discover the “current definition” of species being used by academic biologists. I had foolishly believed that they must have one, by this time, 40 years after my university education. My search finally ended when I had a protracted email conversation with a well-respected, well placed academic biologist, whom I had approached based on my digging deep into some journal article of his. We had quite an extensive discussion only to arrive at his admission that “biology, as a subject, does not have a firm definition of species – never has – and may never have.”
This lack of a firm, scientifically-based definition makes the application science-related policies, enshrined as law, such as the Endangered Species Act – which can have far-reaching social and economic effects on civil society – problematic at best and, worse, subject to “science fads” and whimsy.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
As always, I will be glad to answer your questions about my experience with the definition of the word species.
This essay is a simple comment on the implications of science and science-based-policy that depend on vague definitions and the trouble it can cause.
Disclosure: I once owned a German Shepard/Wolf cross who was a sweet thing but had the unfortunate habit of playing too rough with my four small children – she would race alongside of them, leap up, take them in her teeth by the backs of their necks, and throw them to the ground, place her fore-paws on their chests and woof: “I win!”. I placed her with an ex-soldier who worked with dogs.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“officials to recommend delisting the gray wolf. Conservationists won a lawsuit that forced the agency to abandon the plan.”
There will be no peace, no justice, and no economic growth until the last lawyer is strangled with the entrails of the last environmentalist.
“. . . and all God’s chillern said amen.”
And in case anyone is planning a “Wolf Howling Vacation” this year, you might want to glance through these reviews before you go.
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Wolf-Politics-Economics-Co-Existing/dp/159152122X
Wrusssr,
Misread your comment at first and thought you said “Howlin Wolf.” Enjoy…
All time classic!
And then there is this as for Howling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VTKsEA-nbs
and the Eastern Elk went extinct simply because it never ran into a nice looking perfectly good western elk of which there is no shortage.
g
If we got rid of all the lawyers, we would have to create a justice system that doesn’t need lawyers.
Although it doesn’t feel like it a lot of the time, the law protects both the weak and the strong. There are failed states where there is no rule of law. Justice is dispensed by the local warlord. Maybe you would be happy living under those conditions but I sure wouldn’t.
Yes, we used to have the rule of law in the US. It was replaced by the rule of lawyers. There is a difference.
Bob,
We don’t have a justice system now. If you believe it’s a justice system, then I’d guess you have never been unsuspectingly dragged into what we have now and you have never served on a jury. 😉
It seems to me that we have a legal system, not a justice system… and over the last 7 years the “legal” part seems to be gray and depends largely on your major political party affiliation.
A rather vile curse is “May you be in the right in a legal dispute”
Tom,
Ouch!
Sad but true.
Unless you also have the better lawyers and a bribed judge.
The best lawyer will find a way to keep you out of court.
I once got a lawyer to admit that the “justice system” is simply a set of rules under which lawyers compete amongst each other.
Heard the one about the lawyer who refused to defend any innocent clients? They got quite angry if they were convicted. On the other hand the guilty ones were really happy if he got them off, and didn’t have anything to complain about if he didn’t.
The law protects those with the best lawyers, almost always the most wealthy.
Well when I finally get to hell, I know I will be quite comfortable, because I won’t be able to get close enough to the fire, for all of the lawyers sitting there !
g
Lawyers are not the problem, they simply give voice to people with complaints. It is ill-conceived laws, and the politicians who enact them, that are the problem.
+1000
Jesse Pinkman in Breaking Bad says “We don’t need a criminal lawyer, we need a “criminal” lawyer!”
Commie,
Shades of Sun Tzu regarding battle.
Wise counsel indeed.
May I suggest you amend that to the “last dishonest environmentlaist”. A few of us are trying to do the right thing.
oops bad typo for environmentalist.
No, Jim. You are a good, old-fashioned Naturalist. I for one know the difference. You get out into, and study, Nature, not the Environment.
Now there’s an endangered species. We have become much more urbanized and much less in touch with nature. I suspect that most enviro-ninnies have no direct experience with nature. For them nature is just an intellectual exercise. For sure, they won’t let their kids run free in the woodlands, meadows, and beaches.
I agree with Aldo Leopold who
Nature is a surrogate for marxism attacking The Western world cultural and economic basis. And for them something that support their “war” is logical. So if the man made red wolf can be used as a surrogate its logical to them.
“Red Wolves” generate interstate commerce. Who knew?
Enviros needed a legitimate way to claim wolves generated interstate commerce. So they began in the 1970’s by “saving” the “red wolves” when the USFWS trapped what they could of them roaming between Texas and Louisiana, put them in a captive breeding program, and declared the species “extinct in the wild.”
When the “red wolves’ ” DNA was checked, however, it was found—like the Mexican wolf’s DNA—that feral dogs, coyotes, and inbreeding had polluted its gene pool. Technically, the species was already “extinct” (roughly 75% coyote, 25% red wolf) ” when they were captured , and thus ineligible for any kind of “protection” under the ESA by the EPA’s own “rules”.
But that wasn’t an impediment for EPA “officials” or agencies like the USFWS.
Time passed, the “red wolves” multiplied in captivity, and the USFWS proposed introducing their pen-raised mongrels in Kentucky and Tennessee. State officials, stockmen, and others in those states met them at the gate and told them they didn’t want the wolves.
So the USFWS shifted its red wolf release to federal land in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina and nearby Pocosin Lake Refuge, assuring the public if one of their “collared” red wolves strayed off federal land, the agency would simply “…recapture and return the animal to the refuge.”
The wolves quickly exited these forests and multiplied new generations of collarless wolves that began scouring private land for livestock meals – some more than 100 miles away.
A landowner who shot one threatening his livestock was fined and required to feed captive red wolves for a year.
When North Carolina’s Hyde and Washington counties began having similar problems with the wolves, they passed local ordinances making it legal for ranchers and farmers to kill wolves they believed a threat to people or livestock on their land.
The North Carolina General Assembly joined and supported them.
A lawsuit —Gibbs vs. Babbitt (http://public.findlaw.com/LCsearch.html?restrict=consumer&entry=Gibbs+v+Babbitt&Search=Search)
—was filed challenging the USFWS’s authority to prevent landowners from killing wolves that were killing their livestock. This suit was filed in federal district court for the eastern portion of North Carolina; arguing citizens had the right under state law to protect their property from marauding wolves, the ESA notwithstanding.
In court, USFWS lawyers argued straight-faced that ranchers and farmers killing wolves that killed livestock and wildlife on their property were “ . . . interfering with interstate commerce, and thus violating the Commerce Clause.”
What the case really was about was establishing that “red wolves” generated interstate commerce and, equally important, that federal administrative laws generated by agencies like the EPA could be used to override state and local law.
Establishing the “fact” that wolves generated interstate commerce was critical for the government’s case because the Constitution’s Commerce Clause prohibited the states from interfering with interstate commerce (by killing or trapping wolves that were killing their livestock). Once interstate commerce was established in federal courts, it could be used as a shield for the USFWS and other enviro agencies in the states while they expanded their “wolf programs” that would include the importation of Canada’s large arctic wolves, declaring them “endangered” (they’re not even threatened), and setting them loose in Yellowstone where they’ve now decimated the Mountain States’ moose, elk, deer and other big game along with the those states’ billion dollar a year hunting industry and the businesses associated with it. The wolves also have multiplied and spilled out of the park and into other states, killing cattle, horses, sheep, goats, dogs, and cats wherever they find them as they go.
So, what kind of interstate commerce would red “wolves” generate? Contract lawyers for USFWS argued the kind that tourists generated when they came from places like New York to North Carolina to “hear the ‘wolves’ howl.”
Gibbs lawyers checked the logbook at the federal forest where the so-called “wolf howling’s” were held and found approximately 200 people had attended these events over the previous decade. And no one knew if they came to hear the “wolves” howl or just happened to be camping there when the “howling’s” were held.
What other type of “commerce” could be harmed if a red “wolf” was shot? Well, growth of a valuable wolf-pelt industry might be disrupted.
Gibbs lawyers again checked the historical records and could find no value placed on wolf pelts in the last century in North Carolina. They did find a bounty on wolves beginning in the late 1700s, however
What other type of “commerce” might be affected? Well, researchers who crossed states lines to get there to study “red wolves” would be deprived of a resource if “red wolves” were shot.
The Federal District Court for the eastern portion of North Carolina agreed with USFWS lawyers, and the case was referred to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which, in a split decision, agreed with the lower court.
Here, generally, is the court’s logic refuting the landowners claim they had a right to kill wolves killing their livestock and upholding the “fact” these “red wolves” generated interstate commerce:
. . . that wolves were “things of interstate commerce because they moved across state lines and their movement was followed by “tourists, academics, and scientists.”
. . . that the killing of the wolves implicated this “variety of commercial activities associated with interstate commerce and thus were constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
. . . that landowners killing wolves on private lands would reduce the total number of wolves, which in turn “could reduce the number of wolves on Federal land.
. . . that the [ESA] regulation allowing [these wolves to roam unchecked] was an integral part of an overall federal scheme to “ . . . conserve valuable wildlife resources important to the welfare of the country.”
. . . and that since the landowners were killing wolves to protect their livestock, and since livestock were clearly part of interstate commerce, Congress had the authority to regulate the wolves because the law affected interstate commerce and was therefore allowed under the Commerce Clause, even if that effect was a negative one.
It takes a few minutes to get your mind around that.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on a Writ of Certiorari.
If a man growing corn to feed his own cattle can impact interstate commerce, surely a wolf killing that same cow can impact interstate commerce.
The legal theory in the first case was that had the farmer not grown his own corn, he would have bought the corn in the market, and the corn he might have bought might have crossed over an interstate border. Hence the total amount of interstate trade changed, hence the farmer impacted interstate trade.
(And thus the concept of a government limited in power died.)
If a wolf kills a cow, that cow can’t be sold, if it had been sold it might have crossed an interstate boundary.
Wrusssr – Your comment simply reminds me that, should I ever have the misfortune to run for office, it will be on a platform of total war against bureaucratic / governmental encroachment into the affairs of the private citizen. Ugh, what a completely horrendous and sickening story.
rip
‘A landowner who shot one threatening his livestock was fined and required to feed captive red wolves for a year.’
Is there anything in the judgement that stops him poisoning the feed?
The 50 shades of gray wolves?
Well in California, many studies have shown that a lot of livestock losses to coyotes, are in fact the result of marauding bands of family pet dogs, that go out for the day committing mayhem, and then go home to be petted and then well fed on “dog food ” by Purina.
g
If you grow up in California ranch country – especially the smaller ranches, which have more neighbors and tended toward gentrification earlier – you experienced that problem first hand. Where we lived a deputy sheriff (later full-blown county sheriff) had to german shepherds that he allowed to run free. Their chief amusement was chasing other peoples’ sheep, cattle, horses, chickens and such. He would grin “indulgently” at a complaint from a neighbor and tell you that the killers of your sheep or … were really coyotes. His dogs were just playing. We had a quarter horse that was scary smart. One morning he let the dogs chase him until he caught them – two passed-on AKC, purebred livestock killers. My dad called him to let him know where corpses were and the knucklehead had the gall to try and demand that my dad pay for his dogs. Dad just said, “your dogs, dead in my pastrure, chasing my horses? Sue me.”
I laughed out loud when I read your comment. Thanks.
Lawyers are just pawns in the game. Follow the money. That applies for everything. Our enemies are not our brothers, neighbors, or foreigners, they are our own treasonous leaders, beholden to something other than the people.
If the survival of a species means continuation of its DNA, then even Neanderthals are not extinct as its known that many populations in Europe have some Neanderthal DNA from inter-breeding many 10’s of thousands of years ago. In this sense, all canine DNA will survive in the population of human bred dogs.
Everybody outside Africa has some Neanderthal genes (including You co2isnotevil, unless you are of pure subsaharan descent). East Asians have rather more neanderthal genes and just a leetle Denisovan genes, while Papuans and Australian Aborigines have rather less Neanderthal genes, but quite a lot of Denisovan genes.
By the way at least some Africans have some genes from yet another unidentified, presumably african, hominid species.
And no, far from all canine DNA will survive in domestic dogs, which are descended from just a few wild wolves of a now extinct population somewhere in Asia.
Just recently there have been some studies that dogs really are not descended from wolves as much as has been argued for a long time – and they have been hanging around people much longer than expected – possibly 40 ka or longer.
Illustrated coyote – wolf – dog DNA chart here
https://www.google.com/search?q=charts+of+coyote-dog-wolf+DNA&rlz=1C2GKLB_enUS662US662&biw=1280&bih=634&tbm=isch&imgil=uB516A58aY2rBM%253A%253BM-Wb05sUHuQsxM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fretrieverman.net%25252F2011%25252F05%25252F21%25252Fthe-creature-formerly-known-as-the-red-wolf%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uB516A58aY2rBM%253A%252CM-Wb05sUHuQsxM%252C_&usg=__9bjwQi_6XIBYdnw8wB8nbrQE9h8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwj1mLmtq6POAhUMymMKHcq8BIwQyjcIKQ&ei=Y-OgV7XbI4yUjwPK-ZLgCA#imgrc=uB516A58aY2rBM%3A
A better link
Everybody outside Africa has some Neanderthal genes (including You co2isnotevil, unless you are of pure subsaharan descent). East Asians have rather more neanderthal genes and just a leetle Denisovan genes, while Papuans and Australian Aborigines have rather less Neanderthal genes, but quite a lot of Denisovan genes.
By the way at least some Africans have some genes from yet another unidentified, presumably african, hominid species.
Neanderthals are definitely extinct. That some Eurasians have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes doesn’t mean that Neanderthals have survived.
At the very most, only some 20% of the Neanderthal genome has been preserved. Probably even less of the Denisovan.
Gabro–have you spent much time in a Walmart???
Yes, I have.
No Neanderthals there. People so fat that they’re full-on waddlers or confined to powered shopping carts are as far removed from lean, hungry, muscular Neanderthals as humanly (so to speak) possible.
But I get your drift.
I would suggest a hybrid of them exists in the Sasquatch that roams North America and others parts of the world under different aliases. Notwithstanding the Wal-Mart Hybrid. sarc on
Asians have more neanderthal DNA than Europeans.. the theory-adjusters explain this by adding a second theoretical encounter between neanderthals and Asians.. but given we’ve only incomplete DNA sequences of neanderthal DNA might it not suggest mebbe the Asian DNA is the origin of neanderthal DNA, and give more support to the theory of Asia being the origin of modern humans.
I have always wondered about the staggering level of detail that one finds attached to claims such as “a group of 2,200 individuals left Africa on a rainy summer morning exactly 35,000 years ago” or some such. There must be an awful lot of statistical modeling going into these pronouncements, and my sense is they are getting in the way of unbiased field research.
My favorite has always been how they can take a one-inch x two-inch piece of “skull” and sketch out a full grown humanoidus uprightus.
It’s not just wolves.
Getting an animal on the Endangered Species List isn’t all that hard to do–getting it OFF the list is like holding back the tide with a broom. Everyone has to have a say so and the definition of SPECIES gets rewritten to accommodate whatever policy agenda is set forth.
The problem is not so much delisting some species that has recovered from near extinction but finding a way to get the various NGOs & regulatory agencies to surrender their gravy train. Science be damned; people make money saving the environment. What are they going to do when the job is done?
@Jay Dee:
Exactly, everyone has their own agenda to keep their piece of the pie and make it larger. Damn the science, just redefine the term–that way the money won’t be cut.
You should see the shenanigans surrounding the round goby in my neck of the woods right now…it is enough to make any biologist sick.
Question for Jenn Runion ==> Where is your neck of the woods? what’s the story on the round goby?
@ur momisugly Kip Hansen:
Run a search for round goby in Great Lakes and the lower Fox River which flows into Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin. Right now the policy is to close the locks, dump any and all water into a holding tank, portage a boat and then sanitize it before it can go into the lake. I haven’t kept up on it because I don’t own a boat; but quite honestly the entire thing is b.s. with policy makers confused if they should wind their butt or scratch their watch.
Which also explains why no anti-poverty program has ever worked.
I agree with Mr Hansen, but not for his reasoning. Species are an antiquated notion that can’t be defined. Species originated as a visually and physically distinguishing feature set between two closely related animals. Birds, for instances, were given a variety of species at the start of this method of classifications. Since then, however, we have learned that they will change colors very rapidly from area to area while being all-but identical genetically.
As we developed newer and more sophisticated ways to examine flora and fauna over the last several centuries, species have both been created and removed from the family trees because we had more and more accurate ways to identify the animals. Now, we identify them by their genes, and that has shown how few actual hard lines in the sand between “species” there are.
More frustrating is that if you say “the red wolf isn’t a species”, that may be perfectly true today – but hybrids become their own species classification over time. It is suggested, for instance, that homo sapiens crossbred with neanderthals. Does that mean that we aren’t a “species”?
The concept of species is still valid, although even in multicellular, sexually-reproducing organisms, it’s not always possible to work out the details. There are subspecies and ring species, for instance.
But humans are definitely a species, since all the other species intermediate between us and our nearest relatives, chimps and bonobos, are extinct.
Neanderthals, modern humans and Denisovans are also best understood as a single species, descended independently from H. heidelbergensis, but still capable of producing fertile “hybrid” offspring.
Were there still any H. erectus-grade people around, we could probably also interbreed successfully with them, and there would be some sickos only too happy to do so.
“Neanderthals, modern humans and Denisovans are also best understood as a single species, descended independently from H. heidelbergensis, but still capable of producing fertile “hybrid” offspring.”
A surprising number of “good” species are capable of producing fertile hybrid offspring. Almost any pair of dabbling (Anas) duck species for example, or all large falcon (“Hierofalco”) species.
However this happens only quite rarely in nature, so the species remain separate, though there is some slight gene flow between some of them.
It seems this was the case with Homo sapens, neanderthalensis and “denisova” too. There is only evidence of about three hybridization episodes between sapiens and neanderthalensis, and one between sapiens and “denisova”. That is not much over 10,000 years or longer.
Yes, reproductive isolation by region or behavior makes for valid species and subspecies.
For most of their history, the three human subspecies were geographically isolated. Only when moderns spread out of Africa did they get the chance to interbreed. The two Eurasian subspecies were soon genetically swamped or wiped out.
“Yes, reproductive isolation by region or behavior makes for valid species and subspecies.”
I’ll break down why I think that the species classification is wrong, using region and behavior:
Take humans: Asian, Caucasian, Near Eastern, Arabic, African, Scandinavian, Native American. These are all roughly groupings of ‘race’ and they were all largely confined into different regions until recently and tend to have different behavior profiles (some of which is cultural which only adds complexity) and they all roughly share similar physical features that aren’t shared with the other groups. Humans aren’t a single species just because they can hybridize, right?
Take dogs: St Bernard, Chihuahua, Golden Retriever, Pit Bull, Chow, Miniature Dachshund. These are all roughly groupings of ‘breed’ and they were isolated into different regions until recently and they tend to have different behavior profiles (some of which is training, which only adds complexity) and they all roughly share similar physical features that aren’t shared with the other groups. Dogs aren’t a single species just because they can make mutts, right?
In both of these cases, they are considered the same species because they are genetically identical, excepting the phenotype that’s expressed. In the natural world, this happens all the time. just off the top of my head, I can think of multiple examples of birds, lizards, and other mammals that fall under this sort of “genetically close / phenotypically diverse” umbrella.
“The concept of species is still valid, although even in multicellular, sexually-reproducing organisms, it’s not always possible to work out the details. There are subspecies and ring species, for instance.”
That’s why I disagree. The KPCOFGS classification system is flawed as it was designed for a completely different purpose – primarily identifying organisms by sight and basic physiology. It’s not suited to the way we find the natural world. ‘Ring species’, for instance, is an attempt to bridge this classification need. I would say it’s akin to trying to use a card catalogue to lookup internet websites. Yes, you can probably do it, but why haven’t you moved to DNS? Why haven’t we changed to a better system that reflects the actual paradigm we have evidenced ourselves into?
Arsivo,
Since humans replaced the archaic subspecies globally by around 30,000 years ago, there have never been reproductive barriers. Despite having regional phenotypes, there was constant gene flow among the geographic groups. Even the Americas and Australia were in breeding contact with Asia. In spite of apparent geographical differences, humans are in fact all very closely related, having undergone the bottleneck associated with the Toba eruption. Chimps, though limited to parts of Africa, show much more genetic diversity than our global species.
Dogs are a domesticated subspecies of wolf, with many “cultivars”, products of artificial (man-made) selection.
“Despite having regional phenotypes, there was constant gene flow among the geographic groups. ”
If there was such gene flow, why is locale more of a corollary in phenotype than descent? In other words, why do you find ‘Asians’ in Asia and not pockets in, say, the Middle East? The phenotype variation with constant gene flow would have evened out significantly before the industrial age. There are, of course, gradients in the phenotype. Not every group of animals has a Congo River to separate them.
“In spite of apparent geographical differences, humans are in fact all very closely related, having undergone the bottleneck associated with the Toba eruption.”
Yes. But many other animals share this similarity and are(or were) classified as different species. The distinctions you make in terms of “closely related” are too vague and variable to be used as a classification mechanism.
“Chimps, though limited to parts of Africa, show much more genetic diversity than our global species.”
Bonobos are Chimps, though. Bonobos are a part of that diversity. And yet they are classified separately. That is my problem.
“Dogs are a domesticated subspecies of wolf, with many “cultivars”, products of artificial (man-made) selection.”
Dogs are selectively bred wolves – the differences, genetically, do not make them a separate category.
That’s right. Dogs are a subspecies of wolf.
Humans show regional differences because the gene flow among geographical groups isn’t enough to overwhelm the local distinctions.
But we are all the same species, and, as I noted, one with very minor differences, compared to most mammalian species, including chimps.
“But we are all the same species, and, as I noted, one with very minor differences, compared to most mammalian species, including chimps.”
And that is my point. There are many “species” delineations that are phenotypical only. If you use regional and behavioral variations to drive “species” then dogs aren’t one species and neither are we. The convention is too imprecise to be useful.
By any definition, humans are a single species and dogs aren’t.
Let me clarify that by stating that dogs are a subspecies of wolf.
“By any definition, humans are a single species and dogs aren’t.”
By your own rubric, that is an incorrect statement. Are you wrong or are your rules?
And in that vein, I can find multiple researchers that would call your noted differentiation lines both right and wrong. The tool is broken, sir.
Please name them and present their arguments. Thanks.
“Please name them and present their arguments. Thanks.”
The fact that “species” doesn’t use a hard definition is hardy controversial, and is handily illustrated by your own unspoken conditionals that you apply to your own rules.
Perhaps you would be better suited to reading the literature and arguing directly with those that you disagree?
No, I;m arguing with you. It is your contention that unnamed persons agree with you. Please cite them and their arguments. Your unsupported claims count for less than nothing.
I know what species are. You apparently don’t. You’ve claimed that they don’t exist, or something–it’s highly unclear–so the burden is on you to state your view clearly.
“No, I;m arguing with you. It is your contention that unnamed persons agree with you. Please cite them and their arguments. Your unsupported claims count for less than nothing.”
I made no such assertion. I specifically said “I can find multiple researchers that would call your noted differentiation lines both right and wrong.” Now at what point did I say that they agreed with me?
“I know what species are. You apparently don’t.”
I have shown you repeatedly that what you know is flawed using your own provided definitions. You obviously believe what you believe, that doesn’t make it correct or useful.
“You’ve claimed that they don’t exist, or something–it’s highly unclear–so the burden is on you to state your view clearly.”
I’ve made my point clear. That you don’t grasp it is fine, but that reflects upon you.
You’ve made no point whatsoever.
You claim without any evidence that species don’t exist. Or something. It’s not at all clear.
Then you claim further that reputable specialists agree with you, but you can’t name a single one or reproduce their arguments.
Pathetic.
I’m laughing at you, along with everyone else.
“You’ve made no point whatsoever.”
Baseless claim.
“You claim without any evidence that species don’t exist.”
Strawman argument.
“Or something. It’s not at all clear.”
And/or Argument from ignorance.
“Then you claim further that reputable specialists agree with you, but you can’t name a single one or reproduce their arguments.”
I never made this claim. The claim was specifically about your provided definitions as I already demonstrated to you. And now you willfully misconstrue it into a strawman.
“Pathetic.”
Ad hominem.
“I’m laughing at you, along with everyone else.”
Appeal to the majority.
Enjoy your laughter.
Do you deny that you claimed people supported your view?
For the umpteenth time, who are they?
You’ve got nothing. Nothing at all. But unsupported assertions.
“Do you deny that you claimed people supported your view?
For the umpteenth time, who are they?”
I’ve already asked you once where I made that claim.
“You’ve got nothing. Nothing at all. But unsupported assertions.”
Since you are hinging your argument on a strawman, I would have to tell you that you need to say this into a mirror for it to be correct.
Any strawman was of your own devising.
My argument hinges on reality, as observed by all my biological colleagues since at least Linnaeus and even those of native peoples throughout the world.
The reality of species has not been in the least damaged by your baseless assertions.
“Any strawman was of your own devising.”
I’ve already documented your multiple poor arguments.
“My argument hinges on reality, as observed by all my biological colleagues since at least Linnaeus and even those of native peoples throughout the world.”
Appeal to Authority
“The reality of species has not been in the least damaged by your baseless assertions.”
The “reality of species”, which by context I assume you mean that there are different flora and fauna in the world, wasn’t what I was talking about. I’ve stated it plainly multiple times and have used at least one metaphor.
You have stated nothing, let alone a rigorous scientific definition.
Had you ever studied biology, which obviously you haven’t, you’d know that the standard definition of “species” is “populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity”.
The details differ for microbes and for sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms, but this definition remains valid.
You have everything to learn, grasshopper. Come back when you’ve had even a single undergrad level biology course.
“You have stated nothing, let alone a rigorous scientific definition.”
Baseless claim.
“Had you ever studied biology, which obviously you haven’t,”
Baseless claim.
” you’d know that the standard definition of “species” is “populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity”. ”
Had you ever studied biology, which you obviously haven’t, you’d know that the standard definition of ‘species’ is “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.”
Note that I have not spoken about the definition and made clear that this is where my departure from Mr Hansen was. By the way, your stated rule of “reproductive isolation by region or behavior makes for valid species and subspecies.” violates that standard definition.
“The details differ for microbes and for sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms, but this definition remains valid.”
Except when you don’t want it to, right?
“You have everything to learn, grasshopper. Come back when you’ve had even a single undergrad level biology course.”
Seeing as you don’t even have the basic species definition right, your condescension is underwhelming.
“Note that I have not spoken about the definition and made clear that this is where my departure from Mr Hansen was. By the way, your stated rule of “reproductive isolation by region or behavior makes for valid species and subspecies.” violates that standard definition.”
Actually, re-reading your definition, it was I who was in error. My original reading of your statement omitted “reproductive” from “isolation by region…”
My apologies.
But, as a note, my complaints are with the merits of the classification system and not the definition itself. That is more where Mr Hansen was going.
Reply to Arsivo ==> You use the word species as if there was a set, agreed upon definition for it. When you use “species” in your comment, what definition, what “species concept’ are you intending us to assume you mean?
“Does that mean that we aren’t a “species”? — Well, we can’t tell from the question, because you use an ambiguous word – species.
Give me your working definition of species and I’ll be able to answer.
The Red Wolf is “not a species” not because it is a hybrid, but because it does not meet the usually understood definition of a species — along the lines of “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring.” By that definition, they are not a species, but more analogous to a “breed” — as we understand dog breeds.
In this particular case, the Red Wolf was intentionally bred by humans for specific physical traits considered “Red Wolf-not-coyote” — like breeding a dog for traits considered inline with the desired traits for a Jack Russel Terrier.
Kip,
Yup.
well, if specimens can not interbreed and produce viable offspring, then they are definitely not the same species.
speciation means differentiation and sure, there can be disputes about whether what can happen does happen but as long as the nature of the distinction is defined, then truth can be told.
an assertion of species-hood simply requires the definition of the context to be valid and verifiable.
simples, reallly.
the problem arises when somebody attempts to assert a ‘truth’ in the absence of context.
that’s not a biology problem; it’s an epistemological failure.
Reply to gnomish ==> It is not an “epistemological” failure, it is a lack of definition error — a failure of Biology to have formulated — or re-formulated — a definition for the wqord or concept –> species. Biologists pontificate about vanishing species, endangered species, new species, extinction of species — all without having an agreed upon definition — so they may be , and often are, all talking about vastly different things.
It is not that we have trouble knowing or knowing how to know about species….it is that we have failed to clearly define what attributes a group of living things must have in order to be considered a species — or to keep that definition current with advances in biology.
heh- you just repeated everything i said but without reference to the definition of definition.
lack of defintion is the epistemological failure of which i spoke.
a definition is the set of distinguishing characteristics which must be present for inclusion in the set.
look for the sense and you’ll find it in everything i say. i’m really good at this.
” You use the word species as if there was a set, agreed upon definition for it. When you use “species” in your comment, what definition, what “species concept’ are you intending us to assume you mean?
“Does that mean that we aren’t a “species”? — Well, we can’t tell from the question, because you use an ambiguous word – species. ”
Sir, my objection of the word “species” is that it is a poor delineator in a categorical system. Except when using rules from others, such as Gabro, to show how it’s flawed, I don’t get into the definition.
It is a poor delineator for precisely the reason you state: Ambiguity. But it’s not the ambiguity that is the crux of the problem, as useful cataloging systems tend to have a little bit of ambiguity to allow for elasticity. The real problem is that they took a classification product that was used to delineate on the basis of “species” via differences that were visually- and physiologically-based and kept extending it without dropping the original definitions. This makes the catalog built on this system entirely useless.
Arsivo-
the definition of a word is that it has a definition.
otherwise it is indistinguishable from a grunt or snort.
if you don’t get that you won’t be able to think because words are our tools of cognition.
logic can not be performed with grunts.
any logical proposition that can be validated requires the conditional predicate, which is the context.
drop the context and you can not prove anything much less claim any truth to the statement.
the inadequacy off a word to encompass things not in its definition is not a bug, it is the power and the glory.
it’s what makes it possible to perform logic
logic is the practice of non.contradictory identification.
if no logic, no reason.
that is a logical proposition, see? and you can not falsify it because it is axiomatic, which means it’s self evident.
if you don’t understand that, you are not thinking.
thinking is the use of reason to parse the universe. it is the means of knowing something in a way that can be validated.
it’s all black and white. if you see a blur of gray it’s because you are not looking at fine enough resolution to see the dots.
and yeah- if necessary for clear thought, you define your terms for purpose.
the ‘interbreeding’ definition of ‘species’ is not applicable to living things that don’t reproduce sexually, for instance.
if you want to define a bacterial species you have to use an applicable definition.
it simply does not matter what definition you use as long as you state it in your proposition.
whether you use centimeters or inches does not matter as long as you don’t try to use a rubber ruler.
strict definitions make for clear thinking.
it’s all black and white.
Gnomish,
Self-evidence is a crutch, not a tool.
If you cannot see the use, the function is missing.
Logic can justify everything, which means it cannot its own means to an end.
If it’s all black and white, you haven’t seen between the stars.
it seems i had the last word, then.
grunt away.
“it seems i had the last word, then.
grunt away.”
Can you provide a singular definition (or series of definitions) of the word ‘species’ that cannot be shown to be misapplied to a species?
I haven’t yet run across that definition (or series).
Arsivo, you are obsessing.
maybe you’re an aspie, i don’t know – but there really is no need to get worked up over the fact that things you are familiar with have no satisfactory word to represent each and every one of them.
you can make up a word to label anything you like.
the only thing you need to do to use it for communicating with others is explicitly define it when you use it.
but let’s put that aside – your desire is
“a singular definition (or series of definitions) of the word ‘species’ that cannot be shown to be misapplied to a species?”
this is easy – i’m happy to accommodate you.
“a species (of living thing) is a kind of thing that possesses a collection of attributes that distinguish it from all other kinds of things.”
lol- unhappy macnam, right?
So . . . if I go to the pound to adopt and ask if they have any new species of “hybrids”, some animal control officer won’t say: “You mean Heinz 57’s? Sure, got a whole pen full of ’em out back.”
Isn’t this sort of what the EPA is saying?
Oh wait. Think I got it. The EPA is declaring that what’s not longer a pure species–Airedale,Beagle, German Shepherd, Pit Bull, Scottie, Doberman, Chihuahua, Bloodhound, etc.– but happens to be a mixture of any, all, or portions of these species — can now be called a “new hybrid species” that can be declared “endangered” and that can be “improved” by protecting its . . . habitat? Wait . . . I think I’m getting confused again . . .
My paleontology professor educated us on the difficulty of defining ‘species’. He settled on the notion that creatures were members of the same species if they could and would willingly reproduce under natural conditions.
Reply to Louis Hooffstetter ==> Not a terrible working definition….but would blowup modern taxonomy. That has roughly been the usual casual definition used by many — but not necessarily taxonomists.
In the 1980’s, the US Fish & Wildlife Service tried to establish a breeding population of Red Wolves on Bull’s Island in the Cape Romain Wildlife Refuge north of Charleston, SC. It did not go well. Although several litters of pups were born, the adolescents refused to stay on the island and breed with their siblings & cousins. Instead, they swam to the nearby mainland and mated with whatever receptive canines they encountered: deer hounds, German Shepherds, Labrador Retrievers, etc. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo devastated the island and a few years later the remaining wolves were removed and returned to captive breeding programs at the Alligator River facility and the Cape Romain SeeWee Center. Today, they are essentially a ‘breed’ of canine maintained by the USFWS. If released to the wild, they will again interbreed with dogs and coyotes, and become mutts again.
Reply to Louis Hooffstetter ==> Yes, Louis, I believe that is what the North Carolina’s Wildlife Resources Commission complains about in regards to the USFWS’s Red Wolf Recovery Program there. They release the purpose-bred Red Wolves who promptly escape the reservation, eat livestock, and mate with any frisky canid they come across.
But the requirements of the ESA keep them at it, despite lack of success by any measure.
Here you go Louis. This ought to clear the coyote-wolf-dog-mutt hybrid thing right up for you. Hold on . . . just thought of something . . . it might not . . .
Investigating the wolves that aren’t
https://wlj.net/article-permalink-13195.html
It seems to be a replay of the old “splitter’ and “lumper” dispute, where differences do or do not justify a species designation. I understand there is a similar dispute over the status of spotted v. barred owls, whether both are just a color pattern phase of a common species or not. Academic, but how can a species be endangered when it is not really a separate species?
Reply to Tom Halla ==> Quite right — that’s the question. Really, who cares?, whether they are a species or not — except when it comes to where the science/policy interface leads to laws, where the difference can ruin an entire industry or restrict normal human activity in an entire region.
The fact that a population is a hybrid between two other species doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t a good species. There are plenty of examples of species that are actually stabilized hybrid populations, the Italian Sparrow, Common Cordgrass and the Pomarine Skua for example. Each such case has to be decided on its own merits.
And canine systematics is indeed a murky area. Only quite recently did it become known through DNA analysis that what has been regarded as a subspecies of the Yellow Jackal in North Africa is actually a small subspecies of the Gray Wolf.
Most of the genome of so-called “red wolves” is coyote material. They are just a slightly larger variety of coyote.
Reply to tty ==> Yes, certainly — not necessarily because it is a hybrid — but it has to meet some definition of a species.
There is no such thing as a “good ” species — though I suspect you meant something along the lines of a scientifically valid species.
As far as I know, a “stabilized hybrid population” is not one of the currently accepted definitions for species if it is, then the “beefalo” (a cross between cattle and buffalo) could be so declared a species?
The USFWS has been trying for decades to get “red wolves” recognized as a separate species. Whenever they release their NC-bred (from TX stock) “red wolves” into the wild, they mate with coyotes (since they are coyotes), so that NC ranchers have to deal with larger than average and more numerous coyotes.
But the FWS is loathe to give up an expensive program. Sound familiar?
Gabro, we have a similar problem here in Australia where the tree huggers insist the Dingo [which is the Pariah Dog of Asia and can interbreed with any other dog and was brought here by Asian fishermen around 3,000 years ago] is a “naturalised” native of this country. They have installed it and allowed it to proliferate in National Parks where it is wiping out defenceless natives [which have never learnt to co-exist with dogs of any type] awa causing havoc with domestic livestock.
These tree huggers have not only signed the death knell of domestics [which doesn’t bother them] but also the animals they wish to preserve.
In the US we have a similar problem with “mustang” horses.
The depths of bureaucratic ignorance and civilian emotionalism cannot be plumbed.
Gabro: That was my thought too. Look what the US government does with “wild horses”.
to be fair, the dingo is more native than are the descendants of anglos brought to your fair country as prisoners less than two hundred years ago….
The so called “environmentalists” (tree huggers) as opposed to
conservationists (hunters and fishermen) use these loopholes
to lock up large tracts of land. Several years ago one of these
pseudo-scientists took an endangered weasel hair sample
from a museum and “seeded” it in traps to falsely claim that
the weasels territory covered a large area to limit use and development.
Luckily, he was caught and punished.
They did the same thing with Lynx scat in the northern mountain states. It’s not about the animals. It’s about controlling the land and water using illegal and unconstitutional EPA administrative law (rules, regulations that carry with them exorbitant fines and imprisonment) to take control of private property. Any good Bolshevik will tell you that’s one of the first things that has to go for their good central system to work.
It is a stated goal of the UN Agenda 21 program to do just that take over of the land. This is not an accidental process, but a deliberate effort. The same folks are pushing the Global Warming baloney for the same purpose.
Interesting – I saw a show on PBS ‘Nature’ recently that talked about a ‘CoyWolf’, that lives in the NE U.S. and Southern Canada. Is this another ‘variant’ of breeding between wolves and coyotes? OR maybe nearly the same as the N.C. Red Wolf – perhaps just a different geographic location ?
Interesting what nature can do, ( . . then again, maybe it shouldn’t be – so many ‘amazing’ things happen in nature, it shouldn’t surprise us much anymore . . 🙂 ).
Dogs, as (probably self-) domesticated wolves, also breed successfully with coyotes. In fact, the coyote might well be the ancestor of the grey wolf, a social and larger adaptation to the frigid Pleistocene world from a largely solitary, smaller Pliocene form.
The Gray Wolf is a late immigrant from Eurasia and there is actually a small solitary subspecies of the Gray Wolf in North Africa.
True, but there were coyote-like canids in NE Asia.
Reply to Martin C ==> “Coywolf (sometimes called woyote) is an informal term for a canid hybrid descended from coyotes and one of three other North American Canis species, the gray, eastern and red wolf.”
Wolves and coyotes have been breeding with one anther probably for as long as their ranges have overlapped — and for the same reason that the domestic dog, left unsupervised, produces mutts.
The vonHoldt study shows that the Eastern Wolf and the Red Wolf are just localized Gray Wolf/Coyote crosses.
just a cuddly carnivore after whom clansmen of mine (vuk-cevic) are named since some time before 1600.
Reply to v ==> he said, with a wolfish grin?
They’re crossing wolves with fish?
iwtwt
I grow daylilies, including both hybrids (my own and those of many hybridizers from the 1890s on) and the species (thought originally to be about 24, though a few additional ones have since been named). There are some definite and distinct species, such as Hemerocallis citrina, the lemon lily, tall, nocturnal, and fragrant; there are others, such as the H. fulva family, with boundaries and attributes so vague that it is hard to tell which is which. Most daylily species are diploid (22 pairs of chromosomes), but some of the H. fulva clones are triploid (33 pairs) and thus difficult or impossible to cross with diploids. The general definition of species includes breeding true from crosses with itself, among other attributes (my knowledge is incomplete and vague); but I have known for many years now that the term “species” is a bit elastic and chimerical (there is even a type of daylily plant called a chimera). DNA testing has been done on daylilies recently, in a limited way and to a small population, but I do not know what progress has occurred in defining species for the genus.
I can only imagine the multiplicity of problems that can arise with trying to define species in terms of a widespread animal like a dog or cat.
There are currently 19 recognized daylily species, but tens of thousands of cultivars.
Actually, I now grow over 20 recognized species myself, and I lack a few. Some were discovered in China and Korea fairly recently. As for the cultivars, there are now over 80,000, about 30 of which are my own.
You may be more up to date than I.
The last article I read on daylilies was from 2014, which IIRC, named 19 species.
As you may know, they now have their own family, having been separated from lilies per se.
Reply to John M. Ware ==> vanHoldt is part of a larger group of biologists attempting to sort out the genomes of the entire dog (Canid) family. It is complicated.
I can’t help but wonder what would happen if they applied “Endangered Species” type stuff to people?
Forbid interracial marriage?
Are there fewer redheads in, say, North Dakota than there were 20 years ago? Close the border to blonds and brunettes? Give redheads priority in Emergency Rooms? (Call it “Affirmative Medical Action”.)
“I can’t help but wonder what would happen if they applied “Endangered Species” type stuff to people?”
Well if you use the Biological Species Concept, no problem, all humans can interbreed freely and have fertile offsprig, i. e. one species.
On the othe other hand if you use the now fashionable Phylogenetic Species Concept, where each group whose members are descended from a common ancestor and who all possess a combination of certain defining, or derived, traits is counted as a species, then there will be trouble as there is then at least five human species of which one (the Khoisan) is definitely endangered.
My NW experience is with the cute and cuddly little Spotted Owl. Around 50,000 well paying blue-collar jobs were sacrificed so that little old women of both sexes who live in cosmopolitan condos can write huge checks to green shills who promised to preserve the Spotted Owl as kinda the long range pets of the sentimental and scientifically under-informed wealthy donors.
Alas, the precious Spotted Owl seems to still be going extinct. I don’t know how its cousin, the Mexican Spotted Owl is doing. Perhaps neither version of the Common Spotted Owl was more than a phantom invented by people with a lot of college loans who needed a cushy government job for life in the worst way.
Human pygmies are becoming “extinct” as well. Had they not clearly been humans, we can say with absolute certitude that “reputable scientists” in the pay of powerful international bureaucracies would have found a way to decree that pygmies were a species.
In the real world human pygmies are disappearing mainly because pygmy women tend to pick up education faster than rural men, move to the cities, and marry taller men.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I seem to remember a Nat Geo special about the ‘new’ coy-wolves, a cross between coyote and wolf that were suddenly appearing in the Northeast. Hmmmm, I’d love it if a pack of them suddenly appeared in New York’s Central Park. That way all the urban animal lovers could revel in the restoration of an endangered species in their midst for a change. Gee, they could have their very own red wolves to play with and would no longer have to envy rural farmers their close association with noble wild predators. Just this week some geniuses used a computer model to determine that re-establishing a population of 10,000 cougars in the Eastern US would cut automobile/deer accidents effectively in half.
I suppose it could be argued that the total human death rate may go down given that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) says that deer-vehicle collisions in the U.S. cause about 200 fatalities annually.
But there is still something said for the manner of the deaths, predation seems like a horrible way to go.
Alligators and grizzlies would seem to be a lot more dangerous. In Sweden it is now 207 years since somebody was last killed by a wolf outside a zoo.
There is only two species that I am afraid of, the ones that account for something like 90% of all humans killed by an animal, i. e. Homo sapiens and Plasmodium falciparum.
I was speaking of increased human deaths due to the introduction of cougars vs. the decrease due to vehicle collision. It’s hard to imagine 10,000 cougars eating 200 humans, but I really didn’t want that picture in my head.
Looks like bear attack deaths average 1 or 2 a year. Alligator attacks seem like less than 1 a year. But there has been a very recent uptick perhaps due to lack of animal control due to political pressure.
People were eaten by wolves while I was in Afghanistan in 2005.
Reply to JustAnOldGuy ==> I lived way Upstate NY in the 1980s — “coydogs” were used as a boogieman to scare children into staying near their homes after dark — “wander too far and the coydogs’ll getcha!”
Yet desensitized urban coyotes do kill children, as in LA.
California banned the killing of cougars. Years passed… the population grew and expanded.
Eventually, one took up residence near a popular jogging trail behind Stanford. This was discovered when it killed and munched on a lady jogger… Another down near L.A. was found eyeing a bike path.
Now there are suburban neighborhoods with large “missing pet” problems… and a few close calls on small children in their own yards.
You don’t need any introduction… just wait, they will eventually move in on their own…
About the “coywolf”,there was an article in Field& Stream magazine a couple years back-maybe even 3-4? Can’t recall,anyhow,the theory-backed by genetic studies- done by a guy at Ohio State-is that as western coyotes moved east,they interbred with wolves along the way.
Western coyotes are generally loners,they hunt by themselves,occasionally in pairs,while the eastern coyotes often hunt in small packs.
One study from U. Georgia found that coyotes had a 90% predation rate on whitetailed deer fawns in areas with high coyote populations.
I’ve witnessed similar fawn predation rates in the CVNP in NE Ohio-very few deer around now,compared to ten years ago.
I’ve also witnessed wolves decimate elk herds in Montana,where family had property until a few years ago.
I’ve also seen wolf kills where they never ate any part of the elk or deer-and I watched the kills for the duration of elk hunting seasons,as I worked for an outfitter at the time.
There doesn’t appear to be any difference in gray wolves,whether in Minnesota,Michigan,or Montana,yet the ESA abuse to promote an agenda continues.
It’s not just wolves,although the nonsense about “Mexican gray wolves” and Great lakes Gray wolves being different species from the gray wolves in the Northern Rockies continues.
Check out the number of lawsuits filed by The Center for Biological Diversity pertaining to separate species of gray wolves and the ESA.
They’re one of the tip abusers of ESA lawsuits.
The old definition that distinguished two closely related species as species is that they could not hybridize and produce fertile offspring. Thus although horses and burros could hybridize the resulting infertile “mules” argued that horses and burros were separate species.
We would expect that evolutionary species would evolve diverging characteristics and the ability to hybridize would vary. Plants created a speciation conundrum that eliminated any reliable definition of a species. In the Sierra Nevada oak species commonly hybridize, and the resulting offspring, are the product of seeds with fertility that varies from 2% to 90%. That raises the question of just how fertile does the next generation need to be to qualify the parents as a species or not. Beech trees in South America separated from their sibling species now found in Australia about 65 million years ago. Although each regional Beech evolved unique characteristics, when brought into a greenhouse these beech species can still hybridize.
Sometimes people try to force their definition of a species on nature. Species were often separated into 2 populations by Ice Age Glaciers and then were labeled a species. The Spotted Owl and Barred Owl were designated as 2 species but they can still hybridize wherever their ranges overlap, suggesting they are one species. USFWS is now killing Barred Owls to prevent them from hybridizig with the Spotted. But t is politics forcing a natural behavior on nature.
It is not too unusual for species that are not normally in contact to start hybridizing when humans affect their natural habitat, or move them so they come into contact.
Reply to Jim Steele and tty ==> If two ‘species’ can viably hybridize when their ranges overlap, then, by many definitions, they were not really separate species at all, just localized variants.
Defining a species is now decided by how much genetic divergence, and not driven strictly by the ability to hybridize. To a large degree this is a good definition of a “species”. Species of beech that have diverged greatly over 65 million year, yet still can hybridize, have distinct genomes and physiological characteristics. In contrast there are species of plants that no longer hybridize due to a chromosmal inversion yet their genomes are relatively identical.
The point Kip is trying to highlight is that the definition of a species is also swayed by politics driven by attempts to use the ESA to enact some sort of controls. Although the concept of a species is necessarily nebulous due to how species evolve, that nebulousness can be hijacked for political reasons. I agree this can be very problematic as exemplified by the red wolf that is a hybrid maintained mostly by human efforts.
The decision to “save” te red wolf is political and subjective.
There is a similar issue regards “invasive species.” Species have evolved mobility so that they can deal with an earth that is perpetually undergoing climate change. From a biological or evolutionary perspective there is no static species composition that demands we protect or eradicate one species more than another. Such efforts are always political, driven by our preferences.
Jim,
Correct.
In most cases, traditional species emerge from such genetic data. In other cases, there is ambiguity.
Researchers confirm that as yet unnamed whale sighted by Japanese fishermen was previously unknown to science
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/new-species-of-pacific-beaked-whale-confirmed
“Researchers confirm that as yet unnamed whale sighted by Japanese fishermen was previously unknown to science”
Beaked whale are very difficult to observe, very difficult to determine to species when you do see them, and strandings are uncommon. They may not actually be as rare as is often thought. I once was lucky enough to travel from Chatham Islands to New Zealand in a absolutely flat calm (very unusual) and saw a quite amazing number of beaked whales of four different species, more than in the whole rest of my life, as a matter of fact.
‘Whale species previously unknown to science’ – but well-known to Japanese restaurants and gourmets…
Various cetacians also hybridize, so it might just be another mixing event and not a “pure” species…
Species isn’t the issue.
Government power is. The Endangered Species Act is a violation of the Takings Clause.
Y’all may be behind the times. A “SPECIES” will have “cleared the neighborhood” of its own zone, meaning it has become environmentally dominant, and there is no other unrelated genus of comparable population size other than its satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence …”
Wait, was Pluto a wolf, a dog, or what? Something goofy about scientific definitions…
I’ve seen wolves and coyotes and the wolf pictured here definitely has some coyote genes. Pluto was a dog, Goofy was a democrat turned Republican but we hope he can beat Kain and Unable.
another example is Varanus exanthematicus.
they inhabit 5 million square miles of savannah with a population density summing to billions over the area.
they lay annual clutch of eggs from 24 to 40 with @ur momisugly 100% hatch rate – this means that @ur momisugly98% of hatchlings must die to keep the population down to where it is.
they are common as sparrows but they are in the same genus as the celebrity lizard from Komodo.
Therefore, speciousness can prevail – they are listed as Cites III – import and export permits required.
it’s just about the money and the power and the glory that makes authority.
In a car, on an unpopulated wilderness area highway, I got to see a real-life timber wolf up close. Standing in the middle of the highway.
Stopped the car of course and he was not concerned about our car at all and just stayed there. Glanced over at us every now and again but he was mainly paying attention to what was coming up the highway behind the rise we had just crested.
10 feet away; for several minutes but it eventually moved off into the forest, It stood higher than our subcompact car. The timber wolf is certainly a sub-species of the gray wolf, but they are much bigger, stronger, have a much thicker coat and are just cooler.
Why was he so unconcerned about the car and more concerned about what was coming down the highway, just behind the ridge. Well, we just had started to get up to speed at the ridge after spending 15 minutes on the highway at idle speed …
… Behind a herd of buffalo which was being herded down the highway by a guy jogging on foot, no joke (found out later there was a buffalo ranch there and they all seemed to know where they were going because they just turned off a side-road into the forest just before the ridge). The wolf pack was stalking the herd (but we only saw the one wolf).
A crazy 20 minutes that’s for sure. But seeing a real timber wolf up-close (while being safe inside a car) was the most amazing thing I don’t think a person would stand a chance against them.
[The mods ask if you warned the guy jogging along behind the buffalo, who evidently remained outside the car. 8<) .mod]
Reply to Bill Illis ==> Great story, thanks for sharing.
A human family without firearms is indeed vulnerable to a wolf pack. And they were bigger during the Pleistocene.
IMO one of the functions of dogs was to warn their human partners about wolves and nocturnal predators.
[The mods ask if you warned the guy jogging along behind the buffalo, who evidently remained outside the car. 8<) .mod]
We did not. In hindsight, of course, that is what we should have done, but I guess we were not thinking too straight at the time.
Since learning about the biological concept of a cline, I have always considered this to be a more appropriate way of considering what a species actually is. For example the way that the two ends of circumpolar ring species can overlap, giving the appearance of two distinct species in one place, that are in fact opposite ends of a latitudinally constrained breeding chain of genetically related populations.
“The old definition that distinguished two closely related species as species is that they could not hybridize and produce fertile offspring.” Remember Primula kewensis. Hybrid of two Primulas, one from Himalaya and one from Arabia was sterile and was grown more then 10 yers in Kew Botanical Garden. Than one shoot brought seeds. It had twice as many chromosomes as its parent species and progeny was fertile. Old definition holds well only for mammals.
Even some jenny mules are very rarely capable of producing viable offspring.
Such rare exceptions don’t invalidate the concept of species.
So the progeny became a spontaneous tetraploid! (I am assuming the parent was diploid, as so many plants seem to be.)
Plants are commonly polyploids
Jim,
Correct.
Some 30 to 80 per cent of plant species resulted from polypolidy. That means they arose in a single generation.
Thus, the uninformed who assert baselessly that evolution hasn’t been observed are delusional ignoramuses.
Gabro:
Interesting. Did the fertile jenny mule mate with a jackass or with a stallion and was the offspring a fertile ass or a horse (depending on the sire)?
John:
Makes for wondering if it is possible to create a new fertile species, a super mule, by carefully creating tetraploid male and female mules.
Another good example from botany is the salt marsh cordgrass Spartina anglica. This fertile allotetraploid species arose spontaneously from the infertile hybrid Spartina × townsendii, which itself arose when the European native cordgrass Spartina maritima (Small Cordgrass) hybridised with the introduced American Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass) in the tidal estuary marshes of Southampton Water.
The cause of the infertility in the original hybrid Spartina × townsendii may simply be due to the fact that it is impossible to divide an odd natural number by 2 to produce a natural number quotient with no remainder. The odd numbered chromosome set of the original infertile hybrid means that this plant is effectively a monoploid formed of haploid cells that cannot undergo Meiosis.
Fertility has been restored by the process of forming a polyploid, the simple doubling of the number of chromosomes in the infertile sex cell of Spartina × townsendii to produce a new sex cell that can undergo meiosis by even number division, thereby creating the new separate vigorous fertile species Spartina anglica.
Yep. We had one as a “rescue” puppy (also a Shepard/Wolf cross), but she was fiercely protective with our infant grandchildren. Great guard dog.
Tucci78 my first thought was that must have had an impact on disciplinary strategies for the kids, then I realized they were infant grandchildren – you don’t have to discipline them you just hand ’em back, “Here. Do something about this child.” And of course when they did discipline the child without prompting you’d say, “But you did the very same thing when you were little.”