Post animals on the brink.
>Pic related, a vaquita, 100 left in the wild. Mexicans are killing them and only Trump can save them.
Only because people like to collect their shells.
Those chinks gotta have their fake medicine ya know?
O I am laffin anon
Is anyone collecting as much of their flesh and flash freezing it for the future when we will have the tech to fully regenerate animals from their DNA? Or heck, even collecting their sperm and ovum?
it isn't exactly hard to save this species, there's a healthy male left and a bunch of closely related sister species.
no one is bothering though, better safe some subspecies first.
>with todays biotech/husbandry infrastructure
no, because there's no profit in that.
Not them but so long as their ecological function is the same and their genetics live on to some degree what is the problem with hybridization as a last ditch effort to save a population from inbreeding or extinction?
People complain about bison with minor cattle genes but how much does that really effect the beast if it looks and acts like a bison?
>People ITT unironically want to release hybrids of animals into the wild without knowing it's ecological impact.
Nature can deal with extinctions, specially in rain forests. Worst it's to introduce something different into the ecosystem. Just because hybridization occurs in nature doesn't make it ok to do it.
you are probably baiting or being devil's advocate, but if you could cite one introduced animal that didn't I would appreciate it
pic related; but ofc what people are saying it's completely different from the cane toad example. Either way, we don't have any way to know if a hybrid of animals in the same genus wouldn't be more fit than it's parent species, potentially leading one of it's parent specie to extinction as well. See my point?
I don't know of any instance of that happening; where hybrids are introduced. But it is possible for hybrids to have a better fitness than it's parent species and out-compete other animals in it's ecosystem. Ofc the reverse can also occur, but without previous studies on the matter before introducing, it's a bad gamble for everyone.
There are hybrids in nature, some examples are the Pelophylax and Ensatina complexes, both deal with anuran and urodele hybridization to some degree.
Thanks for the link. To the first poster, this is an example of an hybrid having better fitness than it's parent species.
No they aren't.
Wild cat it's Felis sylvestris and the house cat it's Felis catus.
what sounds fishy about it?
A. californiense has a limited range compared to the invasive specie, and it has to compete for resources with the hybrid, which can lead the parent specie to extinction.
Wild hybridization isn't a bad thing. But human influenced hybridization is.
>why complain about hybridisation if it isn't a bad thing?
If you create a hybrid then it's not the original species anymore. If a GSD fucks a labrador, are the puppies still 100% lab?
Besides, naturally occurring hybridisation is a part of evolution - human fucking around is not.
>domestic cats and wildcats are the same species, theyre not hybrids.
notice the "domestic" part. it's like saying wolves and dogs are the same.
>Wild cat it's Felis sylvestris and the house cat it's Felis catus
the different species is an old taxonomic rule that required renaming domestic species to differentiate them from their wild counterparts.
modern cladistics dispenses with the rule and synonymizes the species.
So Canis fimiliaris is now Canis lupus familiaris, it's no longer a separate species just because it's domesticated.
Likewise Felis catus is now Felis sylvestris catus. The same species as its wild counterparts, just a different subspecies.
>house cat it's Felis catus.
you mean Felis silvestris catus.
they're the same species.
>what sounds fishy about it?
>are more aggressive and have larger and more voracious appetites
> these mutant hybrids
list goes on, it's written like clickbait, or by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.
>But human influenced hybridization is.
do you have an example of that.
maybe look up the ecological species concept
>The same species as its wild counterparts, just a different subspecies.
>as in "not the same"
I thought you had an argument?
Are you retarded or something? Just because the article is badly written doesn't make it less of a problem. Yes I have a example of that. The fucking Ambystoma hybridization you dimbwit. A. mavortium was introduced by us, in the home range of A. californiense. If you are curious about it and want to know more about it look on google scholar for papers on it.
You do realize that any specie of animal in captivity that doesn't have breeding protocols and logs of who breeds with who and who doesn't, and have genetic tests done to correspond to the place they are being released, WILL NEVER be used in reintroduction programs. Wanna guess why?... That's the problem of the wild and domestic cat.
Everywhere I look it says Felis catus, so the genome should be significantly different than the wild one to be recognized as a specie. But it doesn't matter what we call it, truth is, the genomes are different, the behavior is different, and it is a threat to wild animals.
If you can't comprehend that you are either baiting my autism for this topic, or just plain ignorant.
>Just because the article is badly written doesn't make it less of a problem
it makes it less credible.
>The fucking Ambystoma hybridization you dimbwit.
do the species they're competing with have any sort of ecological value that the hybrid doesn't have?
please stop that.
>That's the problem of the wild and domestic cat.
the problem with wild and domestic cats is humans, not cats.
>it says Felis catus
you're using 'specie' so I can't imagine you looked anywhere at all without realizing how much of a drooler you are.
> the genomes are different, the behavior is different
can't figure out whether you're just ignorant or retarded.
English isn't my native language so bashing on the stupidest mistakes just to feel superior just shows how much of a tool you are.
>it makes it less credible.
doesn't matter. I doubt the target public of that website are scientific literate people. And by simply overlooking some keywords in there you can make clear what's going on with it. then you can further research it yourself.
>do the species they're competing with have any sort of ecological value that the hybrid doesn't have?
I'm gonna guess they don't. But it doesn't matter, these species are isolated. Also we don't know the impact that the hybrid can have on another species within that ecosystem.
>the problem with wild and domestic cats is humans, not cats.
And you think I don't know that? But why? Because of the feral cats that breed with the wild ones...
>Wild cats aren't different of domestic cats
You are just an ignorant delusional faggot, I wouldn't guess differently.
Epigenetics. An animal raised in captivity will have different expressed genes, and this can further change it's behavior.
>English isn't my native language
good, because that's not english.
it does, credible articles are written properly.
>by simply overlooking some keywords in there you can make clear what's going on with it.
I no longer find the link credible after reading the 'keywords'
>I'm gonna guess they don't. But it doesn't matter
yeah, I asked for when it's ever been an issue.
>Also we don't know the impact that the hybrid can have on another species within that ecosystem.
then why are you claiming it's a bad thing.
>Because of the feral cats that breed with the wild ones...
ferals hardly live long enough to reproduce, their colonies are sustained by people their outdoor cats.
people are the issue, not cats, it's a problem that's incredibly easy to solve.
>An animal raised in captivity will have different expressed genes
the only thing many 'domestic' species have is a different coat color.
I don't even knew that article had keywords. What i meant is that by simply reading some of it without paying attention you can understand what's going on. i don't care about the website, it wasn't me who linked it even; it still provides a good example of what you asked in the first place.
I claim it is a bad thing because:
-it derives from something induced by us (invasive specie)
-we don't know the full consequences at the local community of what could happen if this hybrid replaced the native specie
That's it. that simple. Even if the hybrid wasn't a problem for the local community of native species, it would still be bad, because we would be loosing a specie and all it's natural history. As I said, A. californiense has a limited range, so it could easily happened.
I have an internship at a natural reserve and we have feral cats thriving here without any help; so i don't get your point.
>the only thing many 'domestic' species have is a different coat color.
you truly are delusional.
>I don't even knew that article had keywords.
I didn't either hence 'keywords'
>by simply reading some of it without paying attention you can understand what's going on
I don't trust information on hybrids from people who call them mutant hybrids.
we don't live in a cartoon.
>-it derives from something induced by us
appeal to nature.
>-we don't know the full consequences at the local community of what could happen if this hybrid replaced the native specie
appeal to ignorance.
>it would still be bad, because we would be loosing a specie and all it's natural history
how is this a bad thing.
they're isolated species with no ecological value.
>a natural reserve and we have feral cats thriving here without any help
tells me a lot about the quality of your 'natural reserve'