A new perspective on hybrids: Please, hear me out

[Devin B]

I see it like this.
Species A is endangered and we try your method to increase the population. We breed species A with species B but that gives us species C. Even if you breed species C back with species A then you end up with species D.

Hybridization won't help with endangered species in fact it could hurt the population.

 

[Anoplogaster]

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the OP is arguing from the ecological roles perspective, while the typical hobbyist argues from the species perspective. As hobbyists, we don’t care as much about the ecological roles of a particular species. We like them because they’re cool/interesting/pretty/etc. From the ecology perspective, many different species (or hybrids) are capable of filling a specific ecological role. It’s the same argument about invasive species. If an introduced species out-competes a native species, it essentially replaces it and fills that ecological role. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe.... depending on many factors. But it’s not a black and white answer.

 

[Devin B]

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the OP is arguing from the ecological roles perspective, while the typical hobbyist argues from the species perspective. As hobbyists, we don’t care as much about the ecological roles of a particular species. We like them because they’re cool/interesting/pretty/etc. From the ecology perspective, many different species (or hybrids) are capable of filling a specific ecological role. It’s the same argument about invasive species. If an introduced species out-competes a native species, it essentially replaces it and fills that ecological role. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe.... depending on many factors. But it’s not a black and white answer.

Every invasive species that I am aware of, is responsible for destroying the the environment they were introduced to or, caused the decline of the native species. In conclusion, yes if an invasive species out competes native species it is a big deal, like extincion of native species level big deal.

 

[cold blood]

Every invasive species that I am aware of, is responsible for destroying the the environment they were introduced to or, caused the decline of the native species.

Yep, that's basically the definition of an invasive. Not all introduced animals are considered invasive...

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.

 

[Devin B]

Yep, that's basically the definition of an invasive. Not all introduced animals are considered invasive...

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.

Thats whay I thought but I don't like to say "all" or "100%" because people like to find an exception then disregard everything I have said.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

I see it like this.
Species A is endangered and we try your method to increase the population. We breed species A with species B but that gives us species C. Even if you breed species C back with species A then you end up with species D.

Hybridization won't help with endangered species in fact it could hurt the population.

I don't get how it would hurt the population. Yes, the species wont be pure anymore and it will have tons of genes from another species, but in the end, there is still a function population of tarantulas in the area.

No, its absolutely not a recent development...people have been breeding them regularly for 40+ years.

Compared to silk moths and other domestic animals, that's quite recent. If this goes on for many more years, the tarantulas will inevitably change. They live in a controlled environment with constant food and no predators. And as Anoplogaster said, even bad mutations will carry on because these animals get medical care.

 

[Devin B]

I don't get how it would hurt the population. Yes, the species wont be pure anymore and it will have tons of genes from another species, but in the end, there is still a function population of tarantulas in the area.

In my example, it could hurt the population of species A if a male was bred to a female of species B and the male ended up being eaten by the female, then there would be one less mature male of an endangered species to breed.

 

[viper69]

Is preserving every species pure absolutely necessary?

It is.

does it really matter weather or not there is a little hybrid blood?

It does.

A somewhat hybridized tarantula population is better than a gone tarantula population

No it isn't. When plays god with nature, it has always backfired, this would be no exception I believe.

we all know that tarantulas are quite the taxonomic mess

Not all of them. However having hybrids would further make taxonomy even more difficult. There's no need for FrankenTs, especially in the wild.

that extinction is a totally natural phenomenon

The fossil record shows mass extinctions as natural. However in modern times the mass extinction that is going on both in sea and land is not natural, it is all created by man.

All the extinctions that we notice are human cased

Wrong, the fossil record shows otherwise

Everyone says it ruined the snake hobby. I don't know

Hybrids have ruined it for some species. For example, the Hog Island Boa is a gorgeous insular boa. I should know, I own one. However breeders have hybridized this species with other redtails to obtain the colors that only Hogs have. Now when you are at shows, you cannot tell if the babies are pure or not. Many "breeders" don't even list if the litter is from hybridization.

but they are labled and kept separated from parent species.

Not always, see above.

At the end of the day, these are bugs. Spending that much money to conserve them in the wild is an insane misappropriation of funds.

What level of funding is sufficient to protect bugs in your opinion?

You do know that w/out bugs civilization would collapse right?

 

[EulersK]

What level of funding is sufficient to protect bugs in your opinion?

You do know that w/out bugs civilization would collapse right?

Agreed, but not these bugs. As we all know, tarantulas have laughably slow metabolisms. They're not making a huge dent in the "pest" insect world, especially those that are critically endangered. I'm talking about the ones that are on the brink of extinction in the wild. If we're being honest, what purpose do they really serve? The entirety of P. hanumavilasumica in the wild can be found within 100 km^2, with the bulk of them within 10 km^2. That's absolutely nothing compared to the surface area of the Earth. They're as good as extinct already. And that's actually my point, that captive breeding is their only path to survival.

To answer you actual question of "What level of funding is sufficient to protect bugs in your opinion?"... it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about P. hanumavilasumica, then any dollar is too much. We've got bigger problems to worry about.

 

[viper69]

Agreed, but not these bugs. As we all know, tarantulas have laughably slow metabolisms. They're not making a huge dent in the "pest" insect world, especially those that are critically endangered. I'm talking about the ones that are on the brink of extinction in the wild. If we're being honest, what purpose do they really serve? The entirety of P. hanumavilasumica in the wild can be found within 100 km^2, with the bulk of them within 10 km^2. That's absolutely nothing compared to the surface area of the Earth. They're as good as extinct already. And that's actually my point, that captive breeding is their only path to survival.

To answer you actual question of "What level of funding is sufficient to protect bugs in your opinion?"... it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about P. hanumavilasumica, then any dollar is too much. We've got bigger problems to worry about.

Playing god has never worked for man. Picking and choosing which to save/conserve etc just isn't right. One never knows how a particular species may benefit mankind either directly or indirectly.

 

[cold blood]

Compared to silk moths and other domestic animals, that's quite recent. If this goes on for many more years, the tarantulas will inevitably change. .

You are greatly overestimating the time needed in evolution.

 

[Patherophis]

I don't get how it would hurt the population. Yes, the species wont be pure anymore and it will have tons of genes from another species, but in the end, there is still a function population of tarantulas in the area.

It can kill that population. To continue in Devin B s example, species A is adapted to area A, species B is adapted to area B, conditions in different areas are always at least slightly different, what is hybrid C adapted for ? Why do You think it will thrive in area A ? (Not considering sympatric species now, and even sympatric species must have a bit different niche to coexist.) So hybrid population can go extinct quite soon, and we know such cases.
And could You please stop ignoring fact, that fertile interspecies offspring in F1 doesn t neccesary means that there won t be serious genetic problems in next generations.

Agreed, but not these bugs. As we all know, tarantulas have laughably slow metabolisms. They're not making a huge dent in the "pest" insect world, especially those that are critically endangered. I'm talking about the ones that are on the brink of extinction in the wild. If we're being honest, what purpose do they really serve? The entirety of P. hanumavilasumica in the wild can be found within 100 km^2, with the bulk of them within 10 km^2. That's absolutely nothing compared to the surface area of the Earth. They're as good as extinct already. And that's actually my point, that captive breeding is their only path to survival.

To answer you actual question of "What level of funding is sufficient to protect bugs in your opinion?"... it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about P. hanumavilasumica, then any dollar is too much. We've got bigger problems to worry about.

So we shouldn t care for any endemic species living in small areas ?
And what about for example tigers, they are already ecologically extinct so they they don t furfill any purpose anymore, so why to care ?

 

[CladeArthropoda]

It is.

First of all, why is preserving every species necessary? It's actually impossible. Imagine trying to save every insect, every plant, every bacterium. It's really not possible. And preserving them pure is also pointless, so a long as a breeding population remains, it doesn't matter weather or not it's hybrid.

It does.

Why. Again, as long as a breeding, functional population remains, it matters not weather its hybrid.

No it isn't. When plays god with nature, it has always backfired, this would be no exception I believe.

Oh stop that. This "oh no we're playing god!!1111" thing is an emotional appeal and nothing more.

In my example, it could hurt the population of species A if a male was bred to a female of species B and the male ended up being eaten by the female, then there would be one less mature male of an endangered species to breed.

Maybe that particular species would go extinct, but there would still be a remaining population of tarantulas in the area.

The fossil record shows mass extinctions as natural. However in modern times the mass extinction that is going on both in sea and land is not natural, it is all created by man

No, its not. Plenty of 'natural' mass extinctions go on today. We just don't care to notice them.

To continue in Devin B s example, species A is adapted to area A, species B is adapted to area B, conditions in different areas are always at least slightly different, what is hybrid C adapted for ?

Well, that's certainly possible. I didn't actually consider that. After all, not all tarantulas are the same. However, species in the same genus tend to be pretty similar. So while species A prefers area A, I think it could possibly make a living in area B.

 

[Patherophis]

Maybe that particular species would go extinct, but there would still be a remaining population of tarantulas in the area.

Conservation isn t about "yupee, we have some tarantula population in that area, no matter if it s hybrid or species from another area or whatever", conservation is about saving unique phyllogenetical lines in particular areas where they have been evolving for thousands and millions of years.

No, its not. Plenty of 'natural' mass extinctions go on today.

Do You have idea what does term "mass extinction" mean ?

 

[Devin B]

Maybe that particular species would go extinct, but there would still be a remaining population of tarantulas in the area.

If yhe area is so inhospitable for one species of tarantula, so.much so that it has gone extinct, how would the introduced species survive? Something caused the extincion that would most certainly effect the introduced species. For example if species A is an arboreal and they have gone extinct, and you introduce a hybrid of A&B, it will likely be an arboreal if A&B are from the same genus, then there are still no trees and nothing is solved and the introduced species dies as well.

 

[MetalMan2004]

I can’t believe this argument is still going... I can’t wait to see how Theraphosa cyaneopubescens works out for ya......

In all seriousness all of these arguments of “maybe we should do it for the good of the species” and “it happened once in nature” boil down to a mindset of “I can so maybe I should.” Creating a Brachypelma ornata or a Psalmopeus lividus (or a Brachypelma auratum/ smithi for that matter) isn’t going to further the existence of tarantulas so stop trying to justify it to yourself.

 

[viper69]

No, its not. Plenty of 'natural' mass extinctions go on today. We just don't care to notice them.

Please provide links to peer-reviewed literature or a reputable scientific body, note wiki is NOT peer-reviewed, indicating natural mass extinctions currently going on today.

Here's what I'm referring to to give you an idea of reputable sources on mass extinctions

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/di...s-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/

Notice NatGeo writes the 6th great mass extinction is man made, ie not natural like the previous 5.

Do You have idea what does term "mass extinction" mean ?

He doesn't IMO

boil down to a mindset of “I can so maybe I should.”

So true, sometimes speaking logic to the village crazy person doesn't work though.

First of all, why is preserving every species necessary? It's actually impossible. Imagine trying to save every insect, every plant, every bacterium. It's really not possible. And preserving them pure is also pointless, so a long as a breeding population remains, it doesn't matter weather or not it's hybrid.
Why. Again, as long as a breeding, functional population remains, it matters not weather its hybrid.
Oh stop that. This "oh no we're playing god!!1111" thing is an emotional appeal and nothing more.
Maybe that particular species would go extinct, but there would still be a remaining population of tarantulas in the area.

Your answers simply show your lack of knowledge about ecology. Every species has a role to play, some longer than others. Humans have never succeeded at playing god in "helping" out nature. It's not an emotional appeal at all, it's a fact, learn the difference it MIGHT help you.

There are a number of animals whose very existence seemed "unnecessary" to many, yet these animals ended up providing man with therapeutic compounds for human disease. That's pretty important. So let me know when you are done playing god and determine which species is not helpful, because it may hold a cure for a type of cancer or something else.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

First of all, "mass extinctions" was a typo. I know what a mass extinction is thank you very much. I ment to say just extinction.

If yhe area is so inhospitable for one species of tarantula, so.much so that it has gone extinct, how would the introduced species survive? Something caused the extincion that would most certainly effect the introduced species. For example if species A is an arboreal and they have gone extinct, and you introduce a hybrid of A&B, it will likely be an arboreal if A&B are from the same genus, then there are still no trees and nothing is solved and the introduced species dies as well.

Well, if one species numbers are too low to get more specimens, using other closely related species may help a little. Of course, other actions must be taken to help.

Your answers simply show your lack of knowledge about ecology. Every species has a role to play, some longer than others. Humans have never succeeded at playing god in "helping" out nature. It's not an emotional appeal at all, it's a fact, learn the difference it MIGHT help you.

There are a number of animals whose very existence seemed "unnecessary" to many, yet these animals ended up providing man with therapeutic compounds for human disease. That's pretty important. So let me know when you are done playing god and determine which species is not helpful, because it may hold a cure for a type of cancer or something else.

Nature isn't some socialist utopia where 'everyone plays a role'. It mearly a bunch of organisms interacting with each other with no regard how much they benefit others

Again, I'm not saying we should hybridization everything. I'm just saying it might not be as disasterous as many think. As for preserving uniqueness, that's still not a good point. A hybrid population will eventually become unique in its own right given enough time.

conservation is about saving unique phyllogenetical lines in particular areas where they have been evolving for thousands and millions of years.

The thing is that species capable of hybridization are almost always in the same genus, so it's not as if we are wiping a whole lineage of them

 

[Devin B]

Well, if one species numbers are too low to get more specimens, using other closely related species may help a little. Of course, other actions must be taken to help.

I think you are missing the point. If the numbers of one species is low, then there must be a reason they aren't surviving in the wild. Introducing a new hybrid species inflates the number of tarantulas but doesnt increase the number resources for those tarantulas.

If the environmental problems are resolved then the endangered species will be able to recover.

 

[MetalMan2004]

Nature isn't some socialist utopia where 'everyone plays a role'. It mearly a bunch of organisms interacting with each other with no regard how much they benefit others

I suggest you google the term “mutualism,” specifically as it pertains to biology.

Well, if one species numbers are too low to get more specimens, using other closely related species may help a little. Of course, other actions must be taken to help.

Rumor has it that multiple species of tarantula have made it into the US hobby by having one single pair smuggled into the country and bred. I don’t know if this is true ir not but if we assume it is then your “we must save the Ts by interbreeding them” scenario is impossible. It would mean that re-population is always possible as long as one male and one female are still alive.