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.
# # # # #
“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.
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.
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.
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”?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 . . 🙂 ).
just a cuddly carnivore after whom clansmen of mine (vuk-cevic) are named since some time before 1600.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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]
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.
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.