Some discussion was started recently offline about the issue of hybrids, color variants, and what even really consitutes a species, specifically with regards to the MBI. I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue?

Chad Penney - MASM President
My Build Journal
Agis quod Adis

I started off the problem by saying:

All of Matt's excellent points notwithstanding, the whole species thing is, in the end, an attempt by humans to shove a bunch of individuals into a conceptual box. In some cases it's clear-cut. In some cases it's not. But if there's a problem then then I would argue that it lies in the fact that there are problems in our conceptualization and the frameworks we use to make sense of them. Individuals will do what individuals will do and let the concepts be damned, after all. 

So, while I applaud Matt's attempts to argue for keeping racial bloodlines, ultimately I don't really believe in it any more than I would subscribe to an attempt, say, to keep some human racial bloodline pure. As far as trying to keep animals from breeding cross-species, I would first have to say, "What's a species?" Then I would proceed to show you how you should consider _every individual_ a separate species (obviously ridiculous), and then I'd be tempted to say that the individuals should figure it out for themselves. 

That said, I am all over Matt's idea that the breeder needs to be completely upfront with any information they have about the background of the parent animals. 

And I should say a this juncture that I'm on a really big deadline for a project that has to be done by Monday and have 35 or so of my old grad school buddies coming to a party at my house tomorrow, so I'll be a little preoccupied.

--Andy

Preface - I think Andy was referring to comments I've made in the past / elsewhere, as I didn't raise the "hybrid" issue as it pertains to Andy's Picasso X Onyx pairing (which, for the record, we agree ARE the same species, A. percula).  And I should probably preface that there are different levels...there are color variants (sometimes even polymorphic species), "breeds or strains", races, subspecies, species and so forth.  Andy's pairing is an example of different color variants in the same species..nothing "hybrid" about them although the offspring will be neither "Onyx" or "Picasso" parsay...they could be something "else".

So given that we KNOW there are inherent flaws in our system as Andy points out, I find myself a "splitter" whenever I can be, especially on the concept of species/subspecies and possible races.  Treat it separate even if you don't currently think it is, because you may come to find out in the future that it WAS unique back when most people may have thought otherwise.  When in doubt, split, because if you made a "mistake" by not splitting, you can't take it back later.

---ON to my initial posted response---

Well, besides the fact that I have an entire article sitting in the Reefbuilders Draft area entitled something like "Location Location Location" LOL, I'm about to show you Andy why it matters.  This may very well blow your mind.  Or not.  But I will say this - what isn't a hybrid today, may very well be a hybrid tomorrow.  And vice-versa.  And when it comes to the long term preservation of natural biodiversity, something I believe we as breeders of marine fish are ethically bound to consider, the ONLY way to do that is to be very well informed.

First let me start with the most potentially inappropriate remark - if we look at the human species from a scientific standpoint, it is quite possible that under some definitions, we would've been considered separate species. 

Remember, the gradeschool definition of what a species is has really crumbled on some levels, but largely those areas where it crumbles are the result of HUMAN INTERVENTION.  That is to say, the Black Ocellaris from Darwin don't ever mate with Orange Ocellaris from other parts of the ocean (in nature).  Fertility of the offspring isn't relevant, because geography has always been PART of the definition of a species.

But let me bring you to the freshwater world...

Original page - http://www.biomedcentral....1-2148/7/137/figure/F1



When I was an African Cichlid breeder, there were 4.5 "species" of Tropheus.  There was T. duboisi, T. moorii, T. brichardi and T. polli/T. annectens  (interesting side note about the map, note that they don't even USE species names to differentiate all these Tropheus!)

Now, there is at least 6 species, with the possibility now of 9.  http://www.tanganyika.sk/rozdelenie-tropheusov

The simple truth is that in the Tropheus of Lake Tanganyika, a "mini ocean" replete with "reefs", virtually every reef has it's own subtle variant of Tropheus.  Not all of them look "that different", which is why most are considered "races" and not species.  Some "species" are found sympatrically, which further provides evidence that they are distinct species and not polymorphic species (classic example of polymorphism are your regular city pigeon).  Tropheus make a more bold example than say Clownfish because Tropheus are, to some extent, visually identifiable as unique varieties.

The bottom line is this.  1.  If you take different Tropheus variants and breed them together, you a) lose the traits that made them unique in the first place and b) create something that is unnatural and could easily be confused for one of the parents, getting into breeding programs and causing PROBLEMS for breeder output.   2.  As Cichlid Breeders, each natural variety of Tropheus is considered pretty darn unique and special.  There are something like 35-50 different varieties of Tropheus in nature.  So there is a certain amount of objection on the simple premise that if you can't find a natural Tropheus variety you love as-it-is, you are probably better off finding a different genus of Cichlid to work with!  But perhaps the most important issue is this:  3.  If a man made disaster wiped out everything in Lake Tanganyika, but a decade later the lake was deemed suitable for species reestablishment programs, we will have the varieties for each natural population preserved in captivity, and we can restore the lake to the way it once was.  But we can't do that if we have a bunch of questionable captive strains that may or may not be pure, and may or may not be the true species.

And you're about to say "ah, but that's all freshwater fish" and I'm about to say "wrong again".  I need only cite a couple Clownfish species to really drive home that this variation in "species" occurs too.  A. chrysopterus, the Blue Stripe Clownfish, has different color forms based on geographic location, some with white tails, some with yellow tails, some with black pelvic and anal fins, some with yellow.  While these are all A. chrysopterus, in no way are they all "the same fish".  Toss in the notion that A. allardi, from Kenya, is thought by some to be the extension of A. chrysopterus(although the difference in LOCATION, combined with huge differences in juvenile coloration, suggest otherwise).  But Blue Stripes are rare in the hobby and anyone who's going to be that interested in the fish will want this info.  Right?

Wrong.  What about Cinnamon Clowns?  There are so many variations of Amphiprion melanopus that it makes my head spin.  My personal favorites are the New Caledonian variety, the Coral Sea polymorphic race where some don't have headstripes, and the Solomon Island variety which has a white tail instead of yellow.  All this wonderful diversity of form has been BRED OUT of most captive lines of Cinnamon clownfish, and certain is lost unless we are determined to preserve it.  But it doesn't stop there....

Because what about Amphiprion barberi?  At one point, only a few years ago, this was the "Fijian" Cinnamon Clownfish.  My books still call it that.  Atypical for a "Cinnamon Clown" because it lacks all black markings.  At first glance, damn, you might very well see this fish and assume it was "Tomato Clown", A. frenatus.  Of course, it was recently determined that it is in fact a separate species.  But what about anyone who mated the Fiji Cinnamon with oh, a Solomon Island Cinnamon?  Of course, at one time, those were both considered "cinnamons", and careless or indifferent breeders, happy to just get their hands on two fish, would be producing something that doesn't exist, nor does it have any of the characteristcs that made either original species special.

And I'm NOT DONE YET.  Because the simple truth is this.  Some people have said that A. barberi may in fact be the fish that is now in the captive trade as A. rubrocinctus.  These two species are NOWHERE NEAR each other.  But because they look similar, especially when younger, it may have been assumed that these unusual tomato/cinnamon clowns were actually A rubrocintus from Australia.  If we ever needed to restore A. rubrocinctus to Western Australia, I can guarantee that it is highly unlikely that the would use any of the currently maintained captive bred lines of "this species" given the level of confusion surrounding it.  No, it is quite possible that if A. rubrocinctus went extinct in the wild today, we probably don't have it perserved in captivity.

So when we talk about "races" and keeping "races" pure, it's really important because we're presuming we know more than Ma Nature.  I mean, both the Black Ocellaris and the Sumatran (Gold Stripe) Maroon have been suggested that they may be separate species, and it turns out that beyond the simple differences of appearance, there may actually be behavioral differences as well that bolster the notion that these are truly DIFFERENT fish, not simply color variants as we may perceive them to be.

While it's unlikely that there is "all that much difference" between a Percula from the Solomons vs. the perculas from PNG, it doesn't mean that every other clownfish or fish species is like that.  Afterall, we need only look at my Neopomacentrus cf. nemerus to realize how important collecting location can be.  According to Dr. Allen, he came up with two different identifications, neither of which matches what I came up with, and they both hinge on location, probably because the only other way to tell these closely related species apart is to put them under a scope.

So in the end, being as responsible as possible about species identification and location is important because we as aquarists are stewards of our natural biodiversity, and frankly, there shouldn't be any need to destroy all the subtle beauty that nature has already provided us, especially in the pursuit of something new.  We have PLENTY of natural species worth saving, which is why every mucked up mistake is taking the place of something that we can't replace if we lose.

More followup - remember, I'm excerpting from a larger discussion that included more MBI specific stuff .

---On a more fundamental level, one of the big portions in the definition of a species that remains intact is that species don't normally hybridize in nature.  Yes, there's always exceptions, i.e. the suspected A. leukocranos, but here's the catch.  A lot of people believe that A. leucokranos arose because of over collecting of clownfish...they were no longer able to find suitable mates.  It has been shown in Lake Victorian Cichlids that they're all closely related enough to produce generally fertile offspring if they hybridize.  IT turns out that it is female mate selection, largerly through color pattern, that determines which fish she spawns with and thus preserves and continues the species.  Take away the ability to make that distinction (i.e. make the water muddy) and they all start hybridizing like crazy.  So much of the natural hybrids indirectly have possible roots in the behavior of man and our impact on the environment.  From a conservation/ preservation standpoint, it's our objective to minimize our own impact, and to recognize it when it happens and thus try to repair it / avoid it.

So, the old test from gradeschool that hybrids are not fertile is bunk.  Orchids are a classic example of that.  In nature, they all bloom at different times, which prevents hybridization and thus perpetuates each species as it's own.  But when we bring them into captivity, we can harvest and store pollen and mate just about any orchid to any other that we like.  And normally, especially within the same genus, we get a hybrid offspring that looks like neither parent and is often plenty fertile.  Geography doesn't even play a role...i.e. we can take plants from opposite sides of the continent and it still works.  Does that mean that all these "species" are actually one?  Of course not.  It means that the notion that species can't interbreed and produce viable offspring (and possibly fertile offspring) is wrong.  Again, the special part is that MAN has intervened.  We look to the natural world to help us discern what a species really is, asking ourselves "how does this all work when man isn't involved".

And one last followup, and this should bring the private discussion excerpting to it's current state???

Umm_fish?

@Matt: I've read your arguments, man. I just don't buy them. But thanks again for making them. You skirt around it, but I have to ask: Please give me a definition of species....

Ha, the scientific community can't even really agree on that anymore, and you think I'm the expert to ask LOL?!

But here goes, off the cuff.  A species is a group of organisms that share like traits and reproduce (interbreed) with other members of the same group to produce new individuals sharing these same traits.  A species as a group does not naturally mate with a dissimilar group (another species) as a function of behavior or geography.

Or if you prefer, you can always try the most popular (and therefore most trusted) reference in the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

So, if someone asks me to preserve species or bloodlines, I think it's fair to ask as a first question: "Can you tell me what a species is?"

I don't want to post Matt's answer for him (since it was done in private), but I think I should tell you what I think is meant by the word. 

---------------------------

First, though, a tangent (I swear, this will connect later): In Medieval (Ptolemaic) astronomy, as you all know, the Earth was considered the center of the solar system (and universe) and everything circled around it. Observations were made and the gross facts fit the theory. Further observations were made and it was noticed that occasionally some of the heavenly bodies (specifically some of the planets) moved in exactly the opposite direction that they were supposed to. In order to account for all of the little inconsistencies inside the prevailing theory of the time, elaborate circles within circles (called "epicycles") were invented for the orbits of some of the heavenly bodies. This eventually became enormously complex (as you can see below, from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle) and the theory strained from all of the counter-facts it was being asked to explain that made no sense under the original use of the theory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Cassini_apparent.jpg/220px-Cassini_apparent.jpg

You all know the rest. Galileo came along. Newtonian mechanics came along. Everything makes more sense if you flip the theory on its ear and turn the intellectual conception around.

(Interestingly enough, the whole process happened again at the end of the nineteenth century with problems cropping up in Newtonian astrophysics. At that point, a dude called Einstein showed up.)

---------------------------

When people observe animals, they can see several different types of reproductive behavior:

1. Animals that look similar to one another mate and have successful reproduction, and the resulting animals can continue the line.
2. Animals that don't look similar to one another mate and have successful reproduction, and the resulting animals can continue the line.
3. Animals that don't look similar to one another mate and have successful reproduction, and the resulting animals cannot continue the line (think "mare + male donkey = mule").
4. Animals that don't look similar to one another try to mate but do not have successful reproduction.
5. Animals that don't look similar to one another and do not try to mate at all.

"Species" is the word that someone invented (remember that it is just a word, something to help humans understand something) to try to encompass 1 & 2 into a conceptual framework. It is "the group of all individuals who fall into behavior types 1 and 2 together." The truth of the matter is that, barring some sort of evolutionary theory based on catastrophism, those five steps are not distinct _at all_ and animals fall into all sorts of positions. Think of the five as a continuum, not as distinct steps.

#1 isn't a problem for anyone. #4 and #5 aren't problems, either. All the real issues revolve around #2 and #3. (But remember that these aren't distinct steps.)

Lots of taxonomists get worried about #2. For example, there are lots of animals in the world that _could_ fall under the #2 umbrella, but those populations of individuals never do inter-mate under normal circumstances. For example, there are populations of animals that become separated by mountain ranges, rising waters creating island chains, etc. As populations of animals get isolated from each other, their populations begin to genetically slowly (or possibly quickly, depending on the evolutionary theory you believe in) slide away from each other through genetic drift. In other words, animals in the populations that have been separated start at #1 and, if they never meet up again and re-mingle their DNA, the two populations will eventually slide on down to #5.

Some biologists get really nervous about this and think it's reason to make an alteration to the definition of species. They make it something like, "the group of all individuals who fall into behavior types 1 and 2 together _except when humans throw the animals together._" That is, animals that _can_ breed together due to human intervention are not considered to be in the same species.

I have _real_ problems with this because that, my friends, is the creation of an epicycle on the theory of species. (Told you I'd get back to it. ) Further, it's the creation of a complication that I think is needless that has come about because people forget that "species" is a human creation to help _us_ make sense of the world. "Species" don't really exist. What exists are a whole bunch of individuals who happen to be on a continuum somewhere with relation to any other given individual they meet.

There are other problems: This whole clause presumes that humans, somehow, are not a part of nature. Humans are animals. Animals (all of them) alter the environment. Humans alter the environment. It may be dumb (okay, there's no maybe about it) to alter the environment as much as we do, but there's nothing unnatural about it. How is a human throwing two animals together that may not normally mate any different than a hurricane coming along and blowing two animals together that may not normally mate? The only difference is that we tend to do things more often, but again, that doesn't mean it's not natural.

So, what happens when an animal from one population that is somewhere on the continuum from #2 to #4 from another population wanders/gets blown/whatever into the second population's territory? 

Maybe the individual doesn't mate. Sometimes one cue or another is off enough that the individual doesn't pass on their genes. Problem solved. Same if they are too far off toward #4. Problem solved.

Maybe the individual mates successfully. If the second population is large enough, the genes of our wandering individual will, within a few generations, get watered down within the population such that it's really not an issue. Problem solved.

Maybe the individual mates successfully and maybe the second population is really small and isolated (like in an aquarist's tank, or maybe a few individuals of two populations all got blown to a remote location together). In that case, there's a real chance that one individual's DNA can make a big difference in the future pool of the local population and there's a good chance for fairly rapid speciation as new characteristics become important and get selected for. Is it unnatural? No. It's how evolution works, along with all the other ways it works.

So, we are back to: Matt says he thinks it's important to keep regionally isolated bloodlines separate. I don't really think that it's so important. What do you see with, say, pure-bred dogs? The pure bred lines are where all the genetic problems get reinforced and the lines are weak. Crossbreeding restores genetic vitality, with the risk that you might lose the feature you were breeding for. In my mind it's better to have healthier animals rather than push whatever feature to its limits with inbreeding and have animals that are less vital because of it.

--Andy

Okay, while I was writing this, Matt posted his responses. So you can ignore the part where I don't want to post Matt's answer for him.

--Andy

Regrettably I don't have the time to address each item point by point tonight, so I'm going to forego my usual in-depth response.

First Andy, you are probably aware of the new concept of "Syngaemons".  If you aren't, please look it up.  They are the "new bucket" if you will, for describing some of the phenomenon you describe.

Andy, the simple truth is that when you mix Man's intelligence and ability to bring things together, this is an influence and force unlike anything in the natural world.  As in so many other scientific endeavors, you need to take the human error out of the equation.  The bottom line is that no natural force is going to instantaneously bring Lionfish to the Caribbean, nor are they going to being Amphiprion allardi together with A. clarkii to "see what happens". 

Nor is any natural force going to bring the pollen of of Oncidium sarcodes to Brassia verrucosa to make an intrageneric hybrid in nature to make something that in Orchid Culture we call Brassidium Tigerlily....not to mention that resultant hybrid being fertile itself, to be bred with even yet another hybrid we call Brassia Santa Barbara (itself the cross of TWO OTHER HYBRIDS, Brassia Edvah Lo and Brassia Rex), to make yet another new concoction of genes in a resultant plant we call Brassidium Caguas Tiger.  It turns out that this man-made plant, Brassidium Caguas Tiger, is parented by Brassia arcuigera, B. gireoudiana, B. verrucosa, and Oncidium sarcodes.

The simple truth is so much of your examples (be they Mules or Dogs) are not the product of natural selection or evolution, but the application of man's intelligence to intervene and create something that is not natural.  Yes, "species" is a "man made construct", but you're arguments would not only imply that all four Orchid "species" listed above, coming from 2 different genera non the less, may in fact just be "one big continuum", and that Brassidium Caguas Tiger, something that could only exist with the intervention of man in reproduction at least 4 times, and something that probably would not survive in the wild because it would lack any natural pollinator or suitable habitat, is somehow on par with the parental species.

Which makes me want to discuss your comment about genetic decay and infusions within a population.  Your argument ignores the simple truths that most "species" in the wild have sufficiently sized gene pools that they are self sustaining and do not decay, but perpetuate the species.  No, only when population sizes decline, be it through natural reasons (i.e. competition between species) or manmade reasons (overharvesting, or starting a captive population without the requisite number of individuals to avoid genetic issues), does what you described actually come into play.  Again, so much of this is "unnatural" and "atypical", and has nothing to do with the definition of a species when the term first came into place.  No, for the most part, if we strip out man's impact, the definition of species does still largely hold up.  And per my earlier examples, we sometimes learn that things that we assume are "the same" are in fact "not".  Which is why it is vitally important to avoid mixing them due to the likelihood that we may find ourselves the stewards of their survival later on.

One more argument really bugged me BTW.  Saying "species don't exist" because it's a man made construct or label is like saying "the colors orange, blue and purple don't actually exist".  We can easily observe the concept of a "species" in most places and should have no issues understanding that the "lines" aren't always as clear.  But no one is going to tell me that a Robin and a Blue Jay are "just part of a continuum" and that therefore, if we want to "preserve" them, it's OK to mix the two since they're really just "birds"...

Great discussion guys! I think it's wonderful that we can come together, state our views, and discuss them in a rational fashion.

I'm glad that we can do this here.

Now, back to the discussion...

Save a Reef... Frag Your Own! Save a Fish... Breed Your Own! www.fishtalpropagations.com

*sniff*  I love it when stuff like this happens....  man I simply love you guys!!!  Andy if you get a knock on the door tonight at 3 am it's me with a 12 pack wanting to continue this discussion....  ready the couch

Matt, while Syngaemons has gained quite a bit of ground can you explain to me why the majority of what I'm seeing in the educational realm that is supposed to "prepare" me for battle in such a discussion is still dismissing it as "edge" or not mentioning it at all?

and to throw the final monkey wrench into the discussion which is well well well over my head at this point...

Might it be time that the scientific community adjust and adapt (as many "species" have) to the changes that have been brought on by the societal structure of what can be considered one of the most impacting species of all.... the human race???  We base "natural" evolution on the premise of the past at this point.  In the past natural cycles such as storms, currents, land mass movements, etc. affected how species evolved and changed.  At what point are we to consider mans effect (i.e. global travel resulting in cross contamination, reduction in natural habitat, and ecological changes due to waste (pollution)) a "natural" force?

In essence, our meddling could be "conceptually" considered natural forces....  as we as humans are as impacting (and just as likely to dissapear / reappear) as a weather pattern or ice age.

All that said two questions pop to mind...

1.  for Matt... are "unintended" and accidental consequences considered unnatural?

and

2.  for Andy.... are "intentional" and engineered consequences considered progression of a lineage?

Both you guys are over my head at this point (and it's an awesome discussion so continue)  but those are my thoughts right now... flame on I say!

Because it's all about the plankton!
~J      

WOW, very intellectual discussion here. Long posts, great points.. I'll be short and sweet. I agree "species" seems to be a simple term to box-in groups into more easily understood concepts/bodies. But functionally, if 2 creatures breed and produce viable and fertile offspring which can in turn produce another generation, the original 2 creatures are of the same species. or at least thats what it means to me. as 2 members of any species can look/ behave VERY differently.

THEJRC
Matt, while Syngaemons has gained quite a bit of ground can you explain to me why the majority of what I'm seeing in the educational realm that is supposed to "prepare" me for battle in such a discussion is still dismissing it as "edge" or not mentioning it at all?

Quite simply, examples of Syngaemons are somewhat limited.  I.e. the best one that comes to mind is the example of corals.  I suspect that perhaps some plants might fall into that line of thinking.  Some of the Victorian Cichlids species might represent Syngaemons on the basis that they only speciated in the last 11,000-14,000 years, and quite readily hybridize like no one's business if you take away the natural barriers (again, key here in this last example is taking away natural barriers to mating).

But, here's the simple way I think of it.  To me, the Syngaemon is the "continuum" that Andy talks about.  No hard defined edges between what is and what is not.  I.e. the same coral species slowly "shifting" from one end of its range to the other as the result of ocean currents and gene flow (i.e. how the water at the headerwater of a river may be cold and clear, but by the end it's muddy and warm).  That's kind of how I think about a Syngaemon, and it is just another "box" in which to try to make sense of the natural world.  It just so happens that most of the examples and scenarios where this type of "box" might fit happen to consist of organisms that have very passive or non-existent mate selection.

For me, fish seem to generally represent something more distinct that what might be thought of as members of a syngaemon.  A big part of that for me is the simple truth of MATE SELECTION.  The reason Andy's "humans are part of nature" doesn't apply is because nothing else in nature decides who mates with what (well, OK, technically that's not entirely true, because in the case of some Orchids, it is the pollinators that bring pollen from one plant to another, and so technically, they are determining which orchid mates with which other individual orchid, but it is still the plant species that prevent "interbreeding" due to geography or different mating seasons...thus one orchid species' pollen is not available when another one is bloom). 

THEJRC
In the past natural cycles such as storms, currents, land mass movements, etc. affected how species evolved and changed.  At what point are we to consider mans effect (i.e. global travel resulting in cross contamination, reduction in natural habitat, and ecological changes due to waste (pollution)) a "natural" force?

The simple truth is that none of these man-made effects are "natural".  Mother nature has no equivalent to ship ballasts and jet airlines.  Mother nature isn't out there with toothpicks and a refrigerator mixing pollen between species.  We are very much mimicking and applying the same "premises" of evolution when we do some of these things, but we are doing so on OUR timeline and at our whim.  We could get into the whole talk about GMOs as well....is a Glow in the Dark Zebra Danio with a coral gene in it a new species????]

I really think the species debate, in light of the fact that we are destroying our bio-heritage at a ridiculous rate, must not start saying "oh, well, it's OK because it happens to work even though it never could have happened without man".  The simple truth is that things like "cross contaminations" or "reductions in natural habitat" or "pollution" are not only bad things, but they are unnatural.  We could certainly argue that humans have so disregarded the natural order that we are now a "disease" on a planetary level...ah, the Matrix kinda had it right when they referred to the human race as a virus

THEJRC
1.  for Matt... are "unintended" and accidental consequences considered unnatural?

Define "unintended" or "accidental" consequences.  Because to me, the "accidental" or "unintended" introduction of, let's say Pink Salmon to the Great Lakes, was most certainly not "natural".  There was simply no way for it to ever happen without the carelessness and audacity of man.  I cannot think of any other natural force on the planet which harvests an organism, carries it across an entire continent, puts it into captive culture requiring machines and electricity in order to perpetuate, only to accidentally release it into a new environment where it becomes established and "naturalized".  The simple truth is that conservation efforts are constantly seeking to "undo" the "damage" that man has wrought on natural environments through carelessness and foolishness.  On the most local level possible, I just spent an hour outside this evening pulling Tansy Weeds, an increadibly annoying weed that smells funky and will take over our entire lawn and garden if I don't stay after it.  It is an invasive species in our area, was originally native to Europe, and will now remain here forever, becoming part of the natural surroudings.  But it could never have gotten here were it not brought over from Europe through the ingenuity of man.  Another one of countless examples of our destructiveness might be looking at Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout and their place in our country's fishery history.  There's an entire book that was just published talking about the history of the Rainbow Trout and let me tell you, it doesn't paint a pretty picture at all.

THEJRC
2.  for Andy.... are "intentional" and engineered consequences considered progression of a lineage?

Mind if I stab at this one too?  Because I have to say no.  Because if you don't control, let's say "how dogs breed", guess what happens?  They REVERT to a more "natural" form, reminiscent of the original species that our man-made "breeds" (which might themselves almost qualify as species) have descended from.  Man's application of selective pressure is simply one of a kind, unparalleled in the natural world, and is a product of our singular intelligence rather than the passive hands of natural forces.

jmrybak
if 2 creatures breed and produce viable and fertile offspring which can in turn produce another generation, the original 2 creatures are of the same species. or at least thats what it means to me. as 2 members of any species can look/ behave VERY differently.

Alrighty, then I'll put it to you point blank.  My Orchid Example above - by your definition, the plant we call "Brassia verrucosa" is the same species then as the plant that we call "Oncidium sarcodes".

Please review these pictures:

#1.  Brassia verrucosa, from Central America - http://www.orchidsonline.com.au/node/1252
#2.  Oncidium sarcodes, from Brazil - http://www.sborchid.com/p...ay.php?ocode=ONC000440

#3.  The offspring of mating these two "types", is the fertile plant we call Brassidium Tigerlily - http://www.orquideasbrasi...amp;codigo_produto=239

Are you really going to tell me that ALL THREE of those things are the "same species"? 

Let me put it to you on a more basic level.  Throw out the word "species".  Can you really tell me all three plants are "the  same" and should be "grouped together"?

Plant #1 is only found in Central America, and Plant #2 is only found in Brazil.  Their distribution does not overlap.  They look nothing alike.  They may grow in different habitats.  They may have different requirements for water, temperature and humidity.  They probably bloom at different times of year. 

Let me ask you, are there any naturally occurring refrigerated pack mules that transport minute packets of orchid pollen between Brazil and Central America on any kind of regular basis?  Is it the monkey's who painstakingly use little sticks of wood to harvest and place pollen on different flowers?

In the "real world", the only way Plant #3 comes about is if a humans store the pollen from one plant to later manually apply it to the other.  This requires precognition, planning, an understanding of how each orchid naturally reproduces, and direct intervention.  This mating requires either the parental plants to be kept in the same collection, or for two people to collaborate over distances, i.e. using an intermediary third party like the postal system to transmit pollen from the male plant to the female plant.  And if they don't bloom at the same time, the only way the pollen remains viable for any length of time is to refrigerate it. 

There is virtually no way for Plant #3 to arise naturally.  It does not exist anywhere in the "natural" world.  If it did, it likely wouldn't be able to reproduce itself, even though it IS fertile when man once again intervenes in the mating and grow-out process (did I mention that Orchid seed is so small that in captivity, it must be sown in a laboratory?!).  Whatever you want to call Plant #3, it is most assuredly not natural.  Furthermore, the only way to recreate it through sexual reproduction is to once again mate the parental forms with the direct involvement of an intermediary (humans).  And perhaps most importantly, mating this Plant #3 to itself does not arise in the parental forms either, and mating Plant #3 back to plant #1 or Plant #2 will yield yet still different results than any of the aforementioned.

So with that said, my question back to you is this - if these are all "the same species", then explain what you're seeing here?

How can you suggest that Human's and their role in this world, is not natural?  What else is it?  We are part of nature.  We are a species just like any other.  Just because we have different attributes and abilities to use tools (thus greater ability to commit harm to other species) does not make us unnatural or alien.

Mother nature has no equivalent to ship ballasts and jet airlines. 

How about birds?  They transplant species to new environments during migration patters and their droppings?  The weather then changes the migration pattern and the birds spread new species further.  How about Ice flows which can wipe out entire environments and transplant species.  How about ocean currents and river systems that can transplant species.  How about changes in weather conditions and water temperatures that can force species to migrate to new, more suitable homes.

Part of the theory of natural selection is the premise that the strong survive and adapt, that those with the right properties to changing environments will win over species without said properties.  Man, simply has some amazing properties.  The only difference with man, is our emotion and sense of reason cause us to consider our effect on other species, which to my knowledge is a trait only man has.  If only we would use it more often!!

Rook

Andy, the simple truth is that when you mix Man's intelligence and ability to bring things together, this is an influence and force unlike anything in the natural world.

Which is absolutely not true. Lots of other species are intelligent, make plans, have language use of some sort, have deception techniques requiring the animal to have elaborate long-term planning and engage in behaviors that will obliquely get them to that goal (heck, even plovers do that). We are the beavers of the world, writ large.

In fact, the problem with humans as a species is that we are _too_ much like every other species out there. What happens when you give a species room to roam, unlimited access to food, and no natural predators? The population expands exponentially with no checks until disease becomes rampant and all resources are finally exhausted and then the population crashes mightily. You see a lot of difference between human and deer populations, say, once the predators are removed? Umm, I hope our population doesn't crash too hard, but I don't see much of a way to stop it.

So, I looked up "Syngaemons" and one of the first pages that came up was "Sarah Palin explains evolution." I ran away.

--Andy

.gif" alt="" />

Rook

Umm_fish?

In fact, the problem with humans as a species is that we are _too_ much like every other species out there. What happens when you give a species room to roam, unlimited access to food, and no natural predators? The population expands exponentially with no checks until disease becomes rampant and all resources are finally exhausted and then the population crashes mightily. You see a lot of difference between human and deer populations, say, once the predators are removed? Umm, I hope our population doesn't crash too hard, but I don't see much of a way to stop it.

 
Interesting and very true point, this is what we've effectively evolved into though   I think Rook coined in on my point best with the mention that we could be considered a natural effect.  Though back to the comparison between intended and unintended consequences.  Boat hulls dragging species around to other areas would be considered unintentional and therefore more "natural" wherein selective breeding to bring out certain traits in an animal or plant (avoiding the species word here) such as seen with clownfish would be considered intentional and therefore less "natural" if natural at all.
 
I think we're looking at some interesting (but separate) issues here, that just happen to interlock because of our own lack of ability to define nature so to speak.  The whole Linnaeus has been deemed broken for quite some time, and classification of organisms based on traits found is definately (and unfortunately) flawed from the get go, regardless of hybridization issues.  Hybridization just makes it worse.  Consider the difficulties in taxonification of plankters (yeah you were waiting for that one).  Unlike land borne critters that walk (deer, racoons, what have you) which have a distribution limited by where it can walk (or be carried to by man) here we have organisms that have an extremely vast NATURAL distribution capacity.  It's only natural that we would see so many different "species" with common traits as they adapt and distribute farther over time.  Runoff, temperature changes, competing species, as well as predation all have effects on how plankters adapt and change, many of these changes not so subtle nor slow.  Having delved myself into taxonomy attempts and seeing the "traits" that are currently used as identification keys I can tell you the system doesnt work! 
 
That said of species classification, Matt I'd like your thoughts on the effects of natural mutation on hybridization?  I.E. using your orchid example, it's possible that a specimen of one species could have a naturally occuring genetic mutation that causes it to bloom off cycle, thus quite possibly changing it's reproduction capabilities. 
 
 
 

So, I looked up "Syngaemons" and one of the first pages that came up was "Sarah Palin explains evolution." I ran away.

lol

Because it's all about the plankton!
~J      

Forgive me if I'm being too simplistic but, I think this quote from Matt's orchid link above makes it pretty simple: 

"A Central American species, intermediate grower, it is very adaptable to the orchid house." 


The key word being house... 

Save a Reef... Frag Your Own! Save a Fish... Breed Your Own! www.fishtalpropagations.com

Are you really going to tell me that ALL THREE of those things are the "same species"?  

What I can tell you is that morphology doesn't mean all that much. And, also, that it doesn't particularly matter how _we_ group them. What matters is how those individuals interact with the world, including pollinators and other individuals that are potential reproductive partners.

Though back to the comparison between intended and unintended consequences.

Which don't matter a whit in the end, honestly. Nature doesn't "intend" except inasmuch as natural creatures have evolved the ability to intend. And it ain't just humans that have the capacity to plan actions and anticipate consequences.


Let's talk about mutualism for a moment. There are tons of examples of mutualism that we're all familiar with--clownfish, etc.--where one animal associates with another to the benefit of both. Can you tell me the most evolutionarily successful mammal mutualists alive today? Dogs and cats. Can you tell me the most successful plant mutualist? Cereal grains. Does it somehow make it "unnatural" that they are so successful because they have evolved into a mutualism with humans? If anemones suddenly took over the world, those clownfish would be sitting pretty. How is their association any more natural?

--Andy

I laughed at Andy's Palin reference as well, although for the record, she is kinda hot, if you take away her politics.  I mean, I want a wife who gets all outdoorsy and keeps an eye on the Russians..oh wait, I have that already, except we watch the Canadians, and I like Renee's politics better too!

The simple truth is that Man is no longer part of "nature" because we have separated ourselves from it at every chance we can get.  We do not abide by the laws of the natural world around us.  We are truly unique and atypical, and we continue to cheat the laws of nature again and again...whereas deer overpopulation is resolved by starvation and disease when predators are absent, we simply apply medicine and agriculture.  No other organism on the planet does what we do. 

We are no longer "natural".  Martin Moe actually wrote a STUNNING book called Project Phoenix that discusses these types of issues.  I'm not quoting, but suffice it to say that Martin's assertion is that evolution, and the powers that drove it in all times prior to our own, no longer applies to humans.  Instead, we will ourselves drive our own evolution.  Or, you could take the premise of the movie Idiocracy - selection no longer selects the most fit, it simply rewards those who breed the most!

Jeremy, you come close when you talk about birds.  However, the simple truth is that their ability to spread an organism is limited to organisms who naturally are able to move around as hitchhikers in that capacity.  Clownfish eggs don't get stuck to seagulls and end up in the Atlantic Ocean.  It's ONLY possible when you put in man's abilities.  And maybe I should be more specific.  Almost all of man's impacts that I consider "unnatural" happen to involve some sort of TECHNOLOGY, and I think we can all agree that planes, trains, refrigerators and aquariums are just a few examples of technology that simply doesn't exist in the natural world.

Andy, perhaps you make another good statement in suggesting that we are atypical, and again, consider our "actions" natural or not, they are singular and atypical at a level unlike any other you proposed.  Migration patterns and Beaver Dams are part of the natural world and are not the product of conscious thinking..they are instinctual, without precognition or forethought.  These behaviors are completely dissimilar to our own intelligence and the application of it onto other species.

You may argue that technology is just the "natural extension" of our human species' unique abilities, yet every single person here discussing this topic is quick to condemn our actions and impact on the world as negative and at the minimum inappropriate.  I think that's very telling, and implies that the argument for man's behavior as "natural" is a way of "excusing" our behavior.  That goes against everything that notions such as conservation and preservation of "nature" in general, and frankly, to excuse our destructive ways as simply the extrapolated manifestation of our natural behaviors to a level simply not see, anywhere else, is to attempt to absolve ourselves from any responsibility of the consequences.