Opinion by Kip Hansen
Way down in Bessemer, Alabama, the development of a huge data center is being fought with a time-tried and proven tactic : invent a new species of the darter-fish and declare it at once “endangered”. According to locals and environmental activists the new development would certainly spell doom for the little discovered-just-in-time new darter – this one declared to be the “Birmingham darter” or Etheostoma birminghamense.
A team of biologists headed by Chase D. Brownstein at Yale University determined the new species “using genomic analyses.” and counting “the numbers of scale rows and fin elements from each specimen and performed principal component analysis (PCA) of the meristic traits…” Of course, there were many differences between the individual fish of these “meristic traits” so the authors classified them into “new” species based on average values for those counted traits, in some cases using mean values, in other the modal number.
Yet, the definition of “meristic traits” is generally this:
“Meristic traits are characteristics of organisms that can be counted and are expressed as whole numbers. These traits are discrete, meaning they have distinct, countable categories rather than a continuous range of values. Examples include the number of fins, scales, or vertebrae in an organism.”
The terminology used in the table is “average number of lateral line spines”, “modal number of first dorsal fine spines” and the “mean value of genealogical divergence index”.
These are not simple counts, though two are presented as whole numbers (allowed by the use of the mode, instead of the mean). These fish, claimed as distinct species, all have between 46 and 49 lateral line scales (individuals in each species having differing counts around the average). Each of the new species consists of fish with dorsal fin spines equally varied around 10 or 11, and the same for pectoral fin rays, around 13 or 14.
In this we find the fine art of the Species Splitters, a term:
“…introduced more widely by George G. Simpson in his 1945 work The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. As he put it:
“splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera … and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. … Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.” [ wiki ]
Minor differences number of scales and fin elements, that vary from individual-to-individual as well as between very localized and somewhat isolated populations seem to have been exaggerated in importance to create new species.
None of these newly declared species have been official designated as “Endangered Species”, but the paper, Brownstein et al. [2025], labels them “imperiled”.
Purposefully invented imperiled species? Who can say? …but certainly convenient to the anti-development activists in Alabama.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Successful ploys are always tried again and again. The famous snail darter was used to delay the building of the Tellico Dam for years. We can look forward to the anti-data-center activists in Alabama using The Science [purpose?] produced by Brownstein et al. to attempt to stop or delay approvals for construction.
As is almost always true, activists are not interested in the new Birmingham Darter – they just want to stop the building of the data center. Same old same old.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How, exactly, does clearing 100 acres out of 700 wooded acres affect a fish? Sounds pretty contrived to me, although I will note there’s a lot resistance to setting up a data center here in the proximity of CT’s only nuke. On second thought, given that we have some of the highest electricity rates in the US, maybe the fish gambit isn’t a bad idea…
Frank ==> Can’t expect a lot of reasonableness out of this kind of opposition. I suppose the real part of the concern is run-off from construction and land clearing. Mostly, I think you are right — they just don’t want the data center — anti-tech Luddites.
If you follow the link to the original story at Inside Climate News (a climate crisis propaganda outfit), there is a picture of a group of anti’s joyfully holding up a picture of the poor little endangered darters.
These Yalies are not scientists. They are activists.
They started their Birmingham Darter “research” with a preconceived outcome planned.
Perhaps they’d have a stronger case for stopping the data centre if they simply asked where all the electricity for it was going to come from.
Oops. Kip, when I first scanned this response, I read “picnic” instead of “picture.” My bad.
Coming, with sanctimonious certitude and catastrophist hyperbole, to a National Public Radio station near you.
I don’t like these people.
Pure NIMBY. I did some quick research before commenting.
Bessemer is a semi rural SW suburb of Birmingham with a population of about 26,000.
The developer has purchased 700 wooded acres inside the Bessemer City limit, directly adjacent to a major interstate and already hosting high voltage power lines. The land was owned by US Steel as a possible steel mill site, then sold in 2015 to a timber management company for selective logging.
Although planned for about $14 billion of eventual data center investment in about 4.5 million f^2 when completed, this would be in 18 separate buildings covering about 100 acres (not including parking), leaving maybe 550 wooded acres still untouched. The projected 1200 MW of data center power needed at full completion could be supplied by one medium sized CCGT (2 x 650) anywhere feeding the existing high voltage line.
There have been several NIMBY lawsuits against the developer and the city council who have approved the developer’s plan—twice (an early lawsuit forced a redo). All failed.
So now a new snail darter has been invented as a last ditch NIMBY attempt. Except the 700 wooded acres contains (per Google view) no bodies of water, and its newly discovered existence didn’t stop the interstate or the power lines that evidently did NOT endanger it.
Fun post, Kip. TY
By this “logic”, every breed of dog and cat is a different species. These are all the same species of fish with varying color patterns and number of fin rays due to random small genetic variations.
All dog breeds are genetically the subspecies Canis Lupus familiaris. (Which just means domesticated wolves.)
I’m betting Gregg E knew that already. It’s okay G.
Yes, with similar behaviour characteristics including:
All Lundhunds can bend their neck/neck backward along their spine (like a reindeer); no (other) canis lupus (or other mamal) can do that.
6 toes on each foot is not a genetic anolomy… it is standard.
Shoulders are essentially allp double jointed.
Ears can be sealed as needed.
These are evolutionary changes due to environment, not simply genetic anomilies. No other dogs have such significant differences that are also integral to the life/activity of the dog in it’s natural unique environment.
The Yale guys would also have to acknowledge that a Lundhund is not a dog, which would further highlight their silliness.
I’m chuckling, humans have created a ridiculous amount of variations of mutts, as they do with some plants like roses.
Just toys.
Kurmudgeon Keith says if it can’t run a bear in circles (the small agile ‘bear dogs’ tribal people in NW BC used) or provide fur for weaving blankets (as Coast Salish bred before sheep wool became available) or chase a coyote away or detect bombs then it has no use. :-o)
KK says city is not a fair place for dogs – they are meant to run and hunt.
Since the endangered west coast Delta Smelt have not been seen in the wild for over 7 years now, the new poster fish for west coast concern is the Northern Tidewater Goby. It’s about 2 inches long and lives in tidal marshes. Restoring tidal marshes that were drained to provide for the endangered Goby is the next big thing. Don’t even think about digging a drainage ditch anywhere near one.
Their naming convention needs improvement. Give them a name that better describes their utility, like Etheostoma progressusprohibere, known colloquially as the Stop Progress Darter.
Append “Yalensis”. Not just Harvard ..
Sub-species exist all over nature. These Darter fish are likely just phenotypic variations driven by local niche conditions.
Ex: Native sub-Saharan Homo Sapiens maintained genetically determined higher levels of skin melanin than homo sapiens who migrated to Northern Europe. But the two can still interbreed and produce fertile healthy offspring, and reflecting the parental phenotypes.
Off course horses and donkeys are a key example of speciation from a distant common ancestor. Differences in the number of chromosomes between horses and donkeys prevents the offspring from being fertile because meiosis in the resulting offspring germ-line gametes cannot be successfully achieved. But cellular mitosis (chromosome segregation during mitotic metaphase) is still fully functional so viable, but infertile offspring (mules) result.
But the key question of the species is: Can they still interbreed and produce fertile off spring reflective of the parental types?
Fertile offspring has long been the biological standard for a species definition. And long before deep genome sequencing became broadly available in the last 2 decades.
I would bet my lunch money that these Darter fish the Yale biologists have identified can produce fertile offspring with other Darter fish in nearby states.
Nice try, but no Roe.
Joel ==> Yes, absolutely, all these little darters would happily get it on and reproduce other little mixed up fishes. There are little populations of the same species separated by space and in-breeding in separate creeks.
Would I be in violation of ESA if I dumped coffee can of similar
Darters into the endangered pool to keep them from becoming genetically limited?
Environmental activists are invariably also Leftist progressive in political outlook. They seek the tiniest phenotypical differences to declare animals and plants new and endangered species. Curiously, they would rather die than apply the same logic to Homo sapiens.
Curiously, they would also rather die than apply the same logic to their pet environmental and species-destroying projects such as land-wasting solar farms and bird-chopping windmills.
Splitters v Lumpers is ongoing. “Red
Wolves” are a clear hybrid of Grey Wolves and Coyotes. But some want to treat them as if they are an endangered species.
I wrote the details of ‘endangered red wolves’ in the first part of essay ‘No Bodies’ in ebook Blowing Smoke—now a very long time ago,
There is no agreed definition of what a species even is.
Yup. Susan Crockford schooled me the hard way on the difference between polar and grizzly bears. Per her view, they can (rarely) still interbreed but are now different species based on many other criteria.
I was thinking of Barred v Spotted Owls, where one risk to Spotted Owls is hybridization with Barred Owls.
Rud,
To our surprise, we found no agreed definition of “species” in 1985 when wife and I started serious hobby research into species on the lovely ornamental plant, genus Camellia. There were lumpers and splitters back then.
Seems like no progress has been made in the last 40 years. That is dogmatism for you. Geoff S
Geoff ==> Also see my DARWIN – WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM.
Try that with orchids…
Anti-development “progressives” and greenies….
.. have always smelt !
Does anyone else think that if this were for 600 acres of solar panels or wind turbines that clear felled the whole lot…
.. this fish would not even exist !
DNA would clear this up. Amatitlania nigrofasciata (old school Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum) has been around forever. A “new” fish has appeared by the common name Honduran Red Point (
Amatitlania siquia among others). Most of the trade has recently started calling it Amatitlania sp. DNA. Dave at Dave’s Rare Fish had it confirmed by sources that the Honduran Red Point and Convict both have matching DNAs.
If you are into fish, the HRP can have light electric blue and red in them. Plus, they seem to have a milder attitude. I have them in my community 55 with no issues and no regrets.
So show us the DNA.
PS davesfish is a great cichlid source. I have a Malawi tank that is mostly from Dave.
g3ellis ==> Biologists have no DNA definition for species either….so that’s is a no go.
Show us the DNA? I say the same thing but so far environmentalist in the PNW have been able to get hatchery salmon listed as a different species as wild salmon to maintain their strangle hold on the public perception.
I’ve been amused by those ichthyologists speaking at cichlid club meetings about their most recent “clarifying” work in reclassifying reclassifications for many years.
PS – Go, Dave!
PPS – I collected fish in Honduras and a visiting ichthyologist admired the convicts that we brought back. In the days before “Honduran Red Point” was a thing.
I wonder if the darter fish would be a problem had developers proposed to flatten 700 acres of woodland for a solar or wind farm?
Of course not. Environmentalists wouldn’t have a problem with the death toll of birds and bats either.
Supposedly >99.9% of all species of life on Earth are now extinct. Nature at work before the advent of that new, never-before-seen species, Homo Sapiens.
Species come, species go. All life is “endangered” from its inception. Living is a terminal disease, resulting in death.
Civilisation involves destruction of natural habitat, and displacement of existing flora and fauna, in one sense. Alternatively, mankind is just another species using Nature’s bounty for itself – no different to a bird building a nest, or a beaver building a dam. Bears shit in the woods. Heaven forbid they should despoil the natural environment by leaving excrement all over the place, for other bears to step on!
All a bit silly, really. I don’t favour damming rivers for anything else except providing potable water for human consumption, but who values my worthless opinion? Humans are a strange lot, but that’s the way it is.
Accept what you need to, change what you can, or just be content with your lot if you are powerless to change it. That’s no help to anyone, is it? Which is my possibly obscure point.
Michael ==> I have formed the opinion that many biologists,environmentalists , don’t accept basic Darwinist evolution. They are afraid things will evolve, change — afraid the survivors of today will be the losers of tomorrow.
Barred owl/spotted owl interbreeding == disaster!
When one studies evolution and mankind’s development from cave dwelling or nomadic hunter gatherers to today, one sees a singular common thread. An instinctual fear of change.
Change takes us out of our “comfort zones.” Therefore change is “”bad.”
Playing the emotional cards is just stoking that instinct to get people to be afraid.
In graduate school for one semester I ran a program for a long passed professor who was on leave at the time, hybridizing Texas hill country darter species. The logical rationale was that the survival stage from fertilization through embryonic development and further was an indicator of the genetics that standard taxonomic analysis attempted to determine. Might have missed it but I didn’t see anything in this paper about it although it was an important part of helping decide taxonomic relationships. Hubbs and Lagler, 1947, Fishes of The Great Lakes, of which they cite an update, became the standard for both fresh and salt water fish meristics. It did briefly cover the Great Lakes responsible geology and some problems like the lamprey introduced by the Welland Canal, but was good science of the time without all the flashy concern.
Darters are beautiful fishes adapted to running water since most lack an air bladder with a streamlined body so are a casualty of the waters where dams slow the flow. These differences do seem to be rather minor but maybe more important is the advocacy similar to what we see in climate papers and other environmental ‘crises.’ Also, “microendemism” (“Given the species’ highly localized distribution, a single toxic spill could prove catastrophic, potentially leading to extinction.”) may suggest a stretch. Endangered Species is a societal/political decision, so they should stick to the science which is fascinating enough. Based on the history of faddish technologies which this certainly is, it may be counter-productive as humans have done plenty of damage to deal with, unfortunately some continues.
It does seem strange that one of their three funding sources was “Bingham Oceanographic Fund of the Yale Peabody Museum” with an important history, but with rare exceptions, darters don’t get close to the coast. Bessemer sounds like a familiar process.
hd ==> Do you mean your project was cross-breeding the various darters?
It wasn’t my project since I was working on coastal water fishes and other organisms, but just taking care of the project’s grant for one semester. With assistance collected darters from the geologically recognized Edwards Plateau, stripped and combined fertile eggs and sperm and fed survivors. For fun I tested their tolerance to brackish water which was not very good.
Yes, the purpose was crossing recognized species, usually collected in different rivers or main tributaries. Matching the degree of hybrid development (ovum fertility, embryonic, if adult reached, it’s degree of fertility), even backcrossing, to obvious species’ meristics was useful. There are a few apparently legitimate ‘microendemics’ as in isolated springs. The famous mosquitofish, Gambusia, produced a few which have been at risk, but a clear relative to the widespread United States species which has been exported all over the world. I once saw it in a pond in Australia.
Freshwater fish hybrids were long thought more common than salt water, which turned out to be more than expected, as they say, but still rare and difficult to match to the ‘new’ genetics. For example, the Russians have been doing lots of such taxonomic work on flying fish. It is fascinating but let’s just say ‘wow!’
I understand that the technology is cheap helping explain all sorts of uses. eDNA (e=environmental) is applied to identify a ‘species’ presence, often all over the water, whose careful workers acknowledge its accuracy problems. As another example isotopes are also used, with many caveats, as proxies for certain components of habitats. These are all useful if care is taken, nothing new there. Matching laboratory and environment results has always been difficult and often surprising.
hd ==> So, when you say “hybrids”, do you mean the offspring of crosses of what are claimed to be separate species? In the oldest definition of species, wouldn’t that make them just “varieties” of the same species if they can produce viable offspring? like dogs? Huge variety of appearance, coat, size, structure, etc — but one species?
I’m sure there are differences in the DNA (as there are between individuals) but what are they using to define a ‘new’ species?
“So, when you say “hybrids”, do you mean the offspring of crosses of what are claimed to be separate species?” Yes, as noted these came from different drainages which brings up the question of niches. Hybrid studies are a measure of the very old comparison of genotype and how it operates to form the phenotype. Fertile ‘hybrids’ would not be separate species, but less fertility (as in infertile offspring) is part of the attempt to measure relationships to give insight into their evolution. There is a famous case of a species that encircles a long, thin mountain chain on one end (like north) but not meeting at the other end (like south). Genetics varies along the chain and those that do not meet (like south) fit the classical definition of species because they are unable to successfully reproduce offspring with each other. I don’t recall details, but such situations can be a failure of various embryonic stages or reduced fertility up to total infertility .
This is a reference that should shed some light on these darters. [Hubbs, Clark. 1967. Geographic variations in survival of hybrids between etheostome fishes. Texas Memorial Museum Bull. 13:72pp.] Clark Hubbs was the professor, the son of Carl whose classic edition (1947) was the original “bible” for taxonomists, the newer edition cited in the Bessemer paper. I don’t know what the new claimed species “bible” would be, but the situation is raising lots of controversy including epigenetics.
This is a very useful book in paperback which I don’t have handy, but I consider this is an important quote which is probably not understood by these advocates.
[Coyne, J. A. 2010. Why Evolution is True. Penguin Books. 282 pp.] “It’s important to realize that species don’t arise, as Darwin thought, for the purpose of filling up empty niches in nature. We don’t have different species because nature somehow needs them…… The ‘clusters’ so important for biodiversity don’t evolve because they increase that diversity, nor do they evolve to provide balanced ecosystems.”
I used this text (4th edition, 1988) in part because the species is used as an important part of equations in ecology so its proper definition is critical. Haven’t seen the latest.
[Pianka, Eric R.. 2000. Evolutionary ecology. San Francisco, Calif., Benjamin Cummings (6th ed.):512 pp.] While taxonomists have always committed the ‘sin’ of ego, there may be too much of the new ‘ethic,’ which raises the question of the old adage of ‘good intentions.’ Examples may be the adding of those acknowledged in older works to the species’ authority names. Is this related to the increase in numbers of authors in all sorts of disciplines? And the increasing misuse of statistics? Hope this helps a little, seems to be getting too complicated.
You might be interested in this paper which seems relevant as with this quote. He goes on with a considerable reasonable discussion mostly on freshwater fishes. While I am neither a taxonomist nor statistician, I have decades of experience using and evaluating such mostly on salt water fishes. Carl Hubbs points out in this paper that he has examined over a million specimens which go back a century ago. He goes on with a considerable reasonable discussion mostly on freshwater fishes. This is part of a George Gaylord Simpson symposium on the subject.
Hubbs, Carl L. 1943. Criteria for subspecies, species and genera, as determined by researches on fishes. Annals New York Academy Sciences. 44:(2):109-121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1943.tb31297.x
“Races, in the sense here advocated, are not accorded a place in the current system of zoological nomenclature. One reason is that since races are ordinarily distinguishable only by average characters that may call for statistical treatment, the routine identification of single specimens would often be difficult or even possible.”
Of course, this is only two sentences and even authorities always need more for a fair factual evaluation. However, he has many publications on taxonomy and the factors that affect it and I doubt that they are archaic even if currently ignored
Kinda sounds like the fruit cakes who constantly complain that the Ark of Noah was a myth because there are millions of species, not all of which could have fit on it. Of course the Bible didn’t use the word “species” or anything like it. It used the word “kind”. There’s the “orsa” kind, or bears. There’s the canine kind, the feline kind, etc. Today we use the word “family” to describe species that developed (through genetic isolation) from a common ancestor.
According to experts, an estimated 1500 “kinds” of animals were all that was needed on the ark to propagate into all the species we have today (and no, that number isn’t in the Bible). Of that, an estimated 1400 “kinds” of animals still exist today.
When in fact we know that Noah’s Ark is a myth since the Jews just copied it from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
“Copied” might be too strong a term, but they are certainly closely related.
Your logic, also means that your statement is incorrect because you just ‘copied’ it from 100’s of others that said the same thing.
In that case, there must be 101 Dalmatian species.
Whilst the objectors may well just be opposed to the data centre there is a problem with data centre growth. The International Telecommunications Union and the World Benchmarking Alliance (ITU-WBA) have just published their ‘Greening Digital Companies Report 2025’
Their data is actually based on 2023 as that was the latest year that full data was available for. They note that the digital companies assessed consumed 2.1% of global electricity. However data centre electricity consumption had been growing at 12% pa since 2017 out pacing total electricity consumption by a factor of four and the combined consumption of electricity of the top ten companies (301TWh) exceeded the consumption of Spain (285 TWh).
China Mobile and Amazon were the top two for total electricity consumption and Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta were all in the top ten of electricity users.
This was before the AI revolution really got underway.
The IEA also recently noted that electricity grids across the world were struggling to keep pace with the rise in power demand and supply chain problems for transformers, and cables were growing. The price of these had almost doubled in the last five years.. Spending on AI grew to $84bn in 2024, three times the level of energy related venture capital funding.
IEA ‘World Energy Investment 2025’ (June 2025)
This tactic may be running into a major legal wall. Story tip.
https://lawliberty.org/environmentalists-lose-their-perfect-tool/
In a ruling with sweeping implications for environmental law and infrastructure development, the US Supreme Court recently overturned a lower court decision that had halted the Uinta Basin Railway—a proposed rail line linking Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight network.
The high court’s decision not only revived a major energy project but also corrected a troubling trend: the misuse of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to obstruct economic development through ever-expanding regulatory demands.
DanT ==> The Supreme Court ruling was covered a couple of weeks ago: SCOTUS Slaps Down Green Overreach: 8-0 Ruling Frees Infrastructure from NEPA Shackles.
But thanks for the story tip!
You are absolutely right — a great and very, very important ruling. A victory for common sense and the rule of law.
Activists have long counted on progressive judges to make new ;aw in favor of various left-ish agendas.
Could photography affect apparent colouring? Fish often have reflective scales.
Would local waters affect colouring? (By having different food in them.
For example, in mammals, the white bears on Princess Royal Island in BC have an orange tinge when eating a lot of one type of salmon. (White versus black there is a ‘colour phase’ dependent on both sires carrying a ‘recessive gene’, similarly red hair in humans is recessive.)
Will natural selection shift colour, by aiding avoidance of predators? (Again a mammal example – shade of fur varies somewhat among cougars, mountain lions, and pumas – all the same beast but those names are used in different areas that have different environment.)
Do fish cross-breed? Birds do to some extent – spotted and barred owls are inter-breeding, small birds in southern BC vary in colour at edges of their normal areas. Fish don’t select their mates, just lay eggs which males dump sperm on, but cross-breeding may limit survival of any (for example, the offspring of donkey and horse mating are sterile – ‘mule’).
Standard eco-activist scam, slice and dice including on political boundaries until you find a population to call ‘threatened’.
OTOH, I understand that some biologists want to reduce the number of ‘species’.