# Interesting concept of preserving endangered species



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Check this out:

Attack of the Mutant Pupfish | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Interesting but the writer is shading some of the examples from the actual truth to support her point.. The example of the cougar gene influx for example, at one time there was gene flow through the whole cougar population but with development, the Florida cougar subspecies became artificially seperated from that gene flow and suffered from further habitat loss and mortality which forced a rapid bottlenecking along with a drop of the population to potentially unsustainable levels. 
We can see the same issue with the collar lizard example... reconnecting the gene flow is very different than deliberately hybridizing the populations... 

With respect to the Cuban and American crocodilian scenario, the argument on hybridization is controverial and based solely on captive specimens and may actually due to differences in the population (see for example http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/18652/1/stri_471_ftp.pdf).... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## easternversant (Sep 4, 2012)

This is an interesting concept, but one that isn't likely to be implemented. There are a number of different theories of how to denote species, and the article sort of gets into this. The important thing is that combining this species with another will create a hybrid, or even potentially a different species. 

Many refuges/parks that contain endangered species, especially those with very small remaining ranges, get most of their working funds from the Endangered Species Act. If they were to do this then they may very well lose their funding. I think we can ignore the ethical reasons about this for now for practical reasons. They are likely unwilling to combine species and potentially lose funding. 

Just my thoughts on the matter...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

easternversant said:


> This is an interesting concept, but one that isn't likely to be implemented. There are a number of different theories of how to denote species, and the article sort of gets into this. The important thing is that combining this species with another will create a hybrid, or even potentially a different species.
> 
> Many refuges/parks that contain endangered species, especially those with very small remaining ranges, get most of their working funds from the Endangered Species Act. If they were to do this then they may very well lose their funding. I think we can ignore the ethical reasons about this for now for practical reasons. They are likely unwilling to combine species and potentially lose funding.
> 
> Just my thoughts on the matter...


Actually it isn't that they very well might lose their funding... they will lose funding. See the discussion on the ESA's position on hybrids http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=ealr 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

Ed said:


> Actually it isn't that they very well might lose their funding... they will lose funding. See the discussion on the ESA's position on hybrids http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=ealr
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


And losing funding in my opinion and probably fact is why they blew up the Burmese Python problem bigger than it is. Bill PS- There is a Bill 511 back in play and being looked at again. Money, Money, Money!


----------



## srrrio (May 12, 2007)

Not totally on thread track, but I remember posting about this earthquake event awhile back in the lounge: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...m4DIDA&usg=AFQjCNEp0-pc1eLxr6urwN_DBIaHnV2yXg

It sounds like the breeding surge that took place after the quake must not have amounted to much, which is a shame.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

srrrio said:


> It sounds like the breeding surge that took place after the quake must not have amounted to much, which is a shame.


One of the real problems is that the population is heavily food limited, and the population fluctuates heavily based on the water height An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hijack 


billschwinn said:


> And losing funding in my opinion and probably fact is why they blew up the Burmese Python problem bigger than it is. Bill PS- There is a Bill 511 back in play and being looked at again. Money, Money, Money!


Bill, 
while funding is a great conspiracy argument, the funding determinations are made at much higher levels.... and it also ignores the basic fact that both of the main researchers on the original (flawed) assessment are staff USGS employees and as a result not going to see a pay increase from funding for it... In addition both are well established with other work so the study doesn't really guarantee longer term employment much less salary stability....

I'll be happy to discuss this further with you via e-mail or pms if you want... 

Hijack over... 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Ed said:


> Interesting but the writer is shading some of the examples from the actual truth to support her point.. The example of the cougar gene influx for example, at one time there was gene flow through the whole cougar population but with development, the Florida cougar subspecies became artificially seperated from that gene flow and suffered from further habitat loss and mortality which forced a rapid bottlenecking along with a drop of the population to potentially unsustainable levels.
> We can see the same issue with the collar lizard example... reconnecting the gene flow is very different than deliberately hybridizing the populations...
> 
> With respect to the Cuban and American crocodilian scenario, the argument on hybridization is controverial and based solely on captive specimens and may actually due to differences in the population (see for example http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/18652/1/stri_471_ftp.pdf)....
> ...


I think there also is the issue of viability of the population (is there long term fertility issues of offspring?). Not only that, but it would seem to me to be tossing all of your eggs into one basket by tossing in a few new individuals in the only existing population.

I think that the author also glazes over the history of Devil's Hole Pupfish. I seem to recall that their population dynamics are rather cyclical. And while they'll never likely get to be a population of 10,000, their home will not be able to support a large number of individuals. It's going to be one of those species that is always going to have a small population size, unless managers decide to introduce it into other areas.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> , unless managers decide to introduce it into other areas.


They tried that and the result didn't go so well see the discussion here https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=3668&y=0&no=&content=true&page=3&css=print 


Ed


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

I would be worried about completely screwing up the ecosystem of that aquifer. If the devils hole pupfish is a slow breeding species (as it seems to be from the article) then if you created a hybrid population that breeds out of control, I would imagine you could wind up with a population explosion, resulting in loss of food source and eventually the fish anyway.

Sounds like a bad idea based on what they know about the hybrids.

Also...it's called a Grolar bear...not a prizzly bear. Talk about a terrible name.


----------

