A new perspective on hybrids: Please, hear me out

[CladeArthropoda]

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



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.

1. Not all organisms are in a mutualistic relationship.

2. Come to me when it's confirmed.

 

[viper69]

Nature isn't some socialist utopia where 'everyone plays a role'.

This shows yours lack of knowledge again. All life plays a role. The web of life is far more complex than any person's mind can comprehend. People who suggest otherwise are full of hot air and either ignorant (that's OK), or willfully stupid (not OK).

This has been proven time and time again. Particularly when man directly intervenes, or when an invasive species comes to town.

 

[boina]

@Kendricks - I read the whole thread . Yikes. I'm not going to thank you for alerting me to it.

@CladeArthropoda - I may actually get your point - I guess. If a population of animals is so small that it is not reasonable to expect it's survival hybridization with a closely related species may actually save at least something similar to that species.

Other than that I cannot see any benefit in hybridization anywhere. As has already been pointed out every species is uniquely adapted to its environment and carries an unique set of allels of specific genes. Hybridization of two species leaves you with a species that's not optimally adapted to either environment. Whatever the environment it will be living in is like will decide what alleles will be kept and what allels will be lost. Mixing up of two species invariable leads to a loss of allels, i.e. a decrease in diversity.

Why is that important? Well, we don't know and that's exactly the point. Humankind has interfered with nature on numerous occasions, often with the best intentions and usually things go wrong pretty fast. We don't know how each and every living being interacts with the environment around it, at least not in detail. There will definitely be things we are missing. A human that goes - oh, that's just a bug, that cannot possibly be important is just showing human hybris and that has backfired often enough in history.

@EulersK - how can you know that a tarantula is not important for the ecosystem it is part of? It's not only a predator, it's also a prey, for example. It digs burrows that may end up as a retreat for other species. Slings and juveniles eat much more and they may actually keep some other species in check. Or there may just be something we haven't thought about yet, possible on a microscopic level we haven't looked at yet. Disregarding all that - I think I mentioned hybris already.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

This shows yours lack of knowledge again. All life plays a role. The web of life is far more complex than any person's mind can comprehend. People who suggest otherwise are full of hot air and either ignorant (that's OK), or willfully stupid (not OK).

This has been proven time and time again. Particularly when man directly intervenes, or when an invasive species comes to town.

Life does not have a status quote. Life isn't some rigid sacred system that is super delicate. Organisms don't exactly have a "role". They just do whatever they do to pass on their genes. Again, conservation is important within our time frame, but we can't expect to keep everything as it was.

This shows yours lack of knowledge again. All life plays a role. The web of life is far more complex than any person's mind can comprehend. People who suggest otherwise are full of hot air and either ignorant (that's OK), or willfully stupid (not OK).

This has been proven time and time again. Particularly when man directly intervenes, or when an invasive species comes to town.

Life does not have a status quote. Life isn't some rigid sacred system that is super delicate. Organisms don't exactly have a "role". They just do whatever they do to pass on their genes. Again, conservation is important within our time frame, but we can't expect to keep everything as it was.

I may actually get your point - I guess. If a population of animals is so small that it is not reasonable to expect it's survival hybridization with a closely related species may actually save at least something similar to that species.

that is exactly my point.

 

[MetalMan2004]

1. Not all organisms are in a mutualistic relationship.

2. Come to me when it's confirmed.

Life does not have a status quote. Life isn't some rigid sacred system that is super delicate. Organisms don't exactly have a "role". They just do whatever they do to pass on their genes. Again, conservation is important within our time frame, but we can't expect to keep everything as it was.

This is the most ridiculous thing in this entire thread. If the ecosystem isn’t delicate and organisms don’t depend on each other, then why are there specific ecosystems all over the world collapsing from human interference?

 

[CladeArthropoda]

This is the most ridiculous thing in this entire thread. If the ecosystem isn’t delicate and organisms don’t depend on each other, then why are there specific ecosystems all over the world collapsing from human interference?

I never said organisms don't depend on each other. I said they mearly don't care for each other in the way we do. Plus, any damage in an ecosystem will be repaired eventually. Invasive species become naturalized given enough time. The biosphere is always in constant flux. Speciation and extinction happen all the time simultaneously

 

[viper69]

but we can't expect to keep everything as it was

Only because man is the worst species on the planet, the planet would be better off w/out us.

Life isn't some rigid sacred system that is super delicate

I never said life was rigid to be clear. However life is quite delicate. We may be thinking of different contexts however.

 

[Misty Day]

Life does not have a status quote. Life isn't some rigid sacred system that is super delicate. Organisms don't exactly have a "role". They just do whatever they do to pass on their genes. Again, conservation is important within our time frame, but we can't expect to keep everything as it was.
that is exactly my point.

Nothing about what you're saying makes sense. If a species of tarantula decreases due to deforestation, how is adding mutts to the mix gonna help? They're just gonna die due to the exact same reason the species did. T species don't go extinct for no reason. Like @Devin B said, increasing numbers doesn't increase resources.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Nothing about what you're saying makes sense. If a species of tarantula decreases due to deforestation, how is adding mutts to the mix gonna help? They're just gonna die due to the exact same reason the species did. T species don't go extinct for no reason. Like @Devin B said, increasing numbers doesn't increase resources.

I never said it would stop the other causes of extinction. I'm just saying it can help if numbers of the species become too low for them to bounce back as is. Obviously, we must solve the other problems separately.

Only because man is the worst species on the planet, the planet would be better off w/out us.

This sentence makes it hard to take you seriously. Only deranged PETA morons say that. The biosphere can and will change no matter how hard we try to conserve it

 

[Patherophis]

I may actually get your point - I guess. If a population of animals is so small that it is not reasonable to expect it's survival hybridization with a closely related species may actually save at least something similar to that species.

that is exactly my point.

Mauritius kestrel - reduction to one single pair, now hundreds
Mauritius pink pigeon - redction to 6 specimens, now hundreds
Ghatam island robin - reduction to 5 specimens, now hundreds
European bison - reduction to 13, now thousands
Northern elephant seal - reduction to 20 - 30 specimens, now over 200 000
Black-footed ferret - from seven to over thousand
(and that all without hybridization)

So @CladeArthropoda You wanted examples, here they are and that even from higher vertebrates. In inverts it's commmon for viable populations to descend just from one fertilized female. So please don't even try to say me anything about too small populations and possible benefits of hybridization. Hybridizatiation is never an option, it's terrible idea for tiger subspecies and absurd idea for T's. Nothing more to be said here.

 

[Dennis Nedry]

If you're trying to conserve a species by breeding hybrids, then the hybrid offspring are no longer the species you're trying to preserve. Hybridisation isn't necessary at all for conservation. Inbreeding is just as bad as hybridisation

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

It is true that species go extinct every day without us noticing, however species are going extinct at well over 1000 times the natural speed because of man

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Mauritius kestrel - reduction to one single pair, now hundreds
Mauritius pink pigeon - redction to 6 specimens, now hundreds
Ghatam island robin - reduction to 5 specimens, now hundreds
European bison - reduction to 13, now thousands
Northern elephant seal - reduction to 20 - 30 specimens, now over 200 000
Black-footed ferret - from seven to over thousand
(and that all without hybridization)

So @CladeArthropoda You wanted examples, here they are and that even from higher vertebrates. In inverts it's commmon for viable populations to descend just from one fertilized female. So please don't even try to say me anything about too small populations and possible benefits of hybridization. Hybridizatiation is never an option, it's terrible idea for tiger subspecies and absurd idea for T's. Nothing more to be said here.

Well, crap. You win. I guess I was being to stubborn. Well, for tarantulas anyway.

I still think Tigers are a different case. It may be bad or ineffective for tarantulas, but for tigers it could still be viable. For one thing, the tiger subspecies are a lot more poorly defined than we think.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-tiger-subspecies-revised-2017/

 

[Devin B]

Well, crap. You win. I guess I was being to stubborn. Well, for tarantulas anyway.

I still think Tigers are a different case. It may be bad or ineffective for tarantulas, but for tigers it could still be viable. For one thing, the tiger subspecies are a lot more poorly defined than we think.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-tiger-subspecies-revised-2017/

In his post he stated that there were at one point 13 bison... ONLY 13. If they can bounce back and have population numbers in the thousands, shouldn't the same be true for tigers?

 

[CladeArthropoda]

In his post he stated that there were at one point 13 bison... ONLY 13. If they can bounce back and have population numbers in the thousands, shouldn't the same be true for tigers?

It's not so much about hybrids or inbreeding, but that tiger subspecies are barely distinct in the first place. There may only be 2 tiger subspecies, island and continental. The are still the same species after all, Panthera tigris

 

[viper69]

Only deranged PETA morons say that

I'm neither but thank you for the insult. Let me know when you think man has done quite positive things for the environment

 

[CladeArthropoda]

I'm neither but thank you for the insult. Let me know when you think man has done quite positive things for the environment

As if your doing any better. If you think humans are soooooo bad, why don't you stop using technology?

 

[Dennis Nedry]

L

It's not so much about hybrids or inbreeding, but that tiger subspecies are barely distinct in the first place. There may only be 2 tiger subspecies, island and continental. The are still the same species after all, Panthera tigris

Just because they're the same species doesn't mean they should be bred together, they still have very different habits. A Siberian tiger may be the same species as an indo-Chinese tiger but that doesn't mean they're the same. The Siberian can weigh almost 200 kg more than the indo-Chinese, has a thicker coat, proportionally shorter and more powerful legs, a larger head compared to the body size and a shorter neck.

There's also the fact that tigers are being bred very successfully, more so than most other large endangered animals. No need for hybridisation there, and seeing as there are tiger subspecies that inhabit small islands they shouldn't be at a massive risk of inbreeding with the numbers we have

 

[CladeArthropoda]

L

Just because they're the same species doesn't mean they should be bred together, they still have very different habits. A Siberian tiger may be the same species as an indo-Chinese tiger but that doesn't mean they're the same. The Siberian can weigh almost 200 kg more than the indo-Chinese, has a thicker coat, proportionally shorter and more powerful legs, a larger head compared to the body size and a shorter neck.

Didn't you see the link I sent you? The tiger subspecies we are all familiar with may not even exist, or at least non in the way that we have traditionally recognized.

 

[Dennis Nedry]

Didn't you see the link I sent you? The tiger subspecies we are all familiar with may not even exist, or at least non in the way that we have traditionally recognized.

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that they have slightly different anatomy and habits

 

[Swoop]

First of all, why is preserving every species necessary?

I think you've just countered your own original argument. If preserving a species isn't necessary then hybridizing a species to "conserve" it certainly isn't necessary.

Also, OP is 15.