Slashdot Mirror


Remember When Elephants Had Tusks?

Boing Boing links to an interesting story today. If an antibiotic kills 95% of a germ species, but 5% bear a gene for resistance, indiscriminate use of it will result in a surviving line of entirely resistant germs. But on a slightly larger scale, genetically tusk-free elephants are gaining ground relative to their tusked brethren, says one study, thanks to a nasty antibiotic called poaching. If elephants don't have the decency to go extinct, maybe they'll just hang around to tusklessly remind our grandchildren where billiard balls originally came from, and to invite us to ponder what the last poacher was thinking as he shot the last tusked elephant.

24 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. One has to wonder... by ZSpade · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How that poacher is going to get that gun past zoo security...

    I seriously doubt they'll go extinct, but tusked elephants may go extinct in the wild.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:One has to wonder... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I seriously doubt they'll go extinct, but tusked elephants may go extinct in the wild.

      If they're extinct in the wild and only exist in captivity, the species is likely to be limited to a relatively small number of individuals, and possibly not a whole lot of genetic diversity.

      Short of some really good luck and exceedingly well-funded and planned management, such a situation screams for it to be extinct in a really short period of time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:One has to wonder... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the parks of Kenya, poachers go heavily armed, obviously to kill elephants, but also to defend against wardens, who shoot to kill on sight.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  2. It is part of a trend. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is part of trend. Tens of thousands of years ago, elephants had 6 tusks instead of just 2.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  3. Interesting... by quark101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While the bacteria example has been around for a very long time and is commonly known, it is not very often that the same trend is extrapolated to the larger, more relavent world.

    What we have to ask ourselves though, is, are we doing this to any other animals as well? Forcing evolution, as it could be called? What will be the long term effects? Tuskless elephants is one thing, but there could potentially be something very dangerous coming, besides super bacteria, of course.

    1. Re:Interesting... by TheSloth2001ca · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This same phenomenon has been observed in lakes where extensive sport fishing takes place. Since either by regulations or due to the angler's behaviour the larger fish seem to have the most fishing pressure applied to them. Over time the abundance of large fish decline, and remain low even after many years where not fishing is permitted on the lake. What happens is those fish with the genetic disposition to grow very large have a much lower success rate when it comes to mating, and there fore the genes that allow fish to grow large become increasingly rare.

      --
      Just another crappy blog
    2. Re:Interesting... by christopherfinke · · Score: 2, Informative

      On CNN the other day, I heard this referred to as "survival of the fittest," which was one of the dumbest things I had heard in weeks. The anchor implied that because tuskless elephants used to be 5% of the elephant population and now they're 8%, this means that more elephants are being born with the tuskless gene, which could be completely false. If I have 100 elephants, 5 of them tuskless, and I kill 37 of the tusked elephants, 8% of the elephants are now tuskless - Darwin it ain't.

    3. Re:Interesting... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
      What we have to ask ourselves though, is, are we doing this to any other animals as well? Forcing evolution, as it could be called?

      I have to strongly object to your terminology. Evolution is not an entity or process which can be "forced" into anything. It is simply an observation about what happens in the world.

      "Selective pressure" is an incredibly loaded term which anthropomorphizes what's really happening. In this case, what is happening with the elephants is that the ones with tusks are being killed off, and the ones without tusks are not (and it's not any more complicated than that). There is nothing putting "pressure" on the elephants to lose their tusks. The mutations are random and happen without respect to environmental changes. It is the environment which makes some of these mutations more or less favorable but it is not the cause of those mutations.

      Suppose you wanted to "force" humans to evolve gills, like fish. Suppose that you did this by rounding up everybody who did not have gills, and drowning them. Do you think this procedure has any chance in hell of causing humans to start growing gills? The reason why not, is that the sort of mutation that could cause that is extremely complex and almost infinitely unlikely. But in the case of the elephants, the tuskless phenotype was present even before the advent of modern hunting.

      Evolution has no will, no path, no agenda, no nothing. It can't be forced, pressured, coerced, etc.

    4. Re:Interesting... by TheSloth2001ca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Evolution has no will, no path, no agenda, no nothing. It can't be forced, pressured, coerced, etc.

      However by modifying the selective pressures we can have large influences on the directions of evolution. While humans did not create the tuskless phenotype we are contributing to its increase in abundance

      --
      Just another crappy blog
    5. Re:Interesting... by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are we doing this to any other animals as well?

      Dogs? Cats? Cows? Sheep? We've been doing it to pets for millenia, and it has not been harmful (at least not always).

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    6. Re:Interesting... by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Selective pressure is how we breed various domestic animals. It's simply shorthand for saying, "desirable ones get to breed, and the rest are terminated and/or eaten". Natural examples would be long-term desertification (animals and plants that have genes causing them to be more efficient with water live long enough to breed), or salination (if you have genes which allow you to sequester, transport, or otherwise control salt, then you'll survive long enough to breed and pass on those genes).

      Several years ago, as the SU was breaking up, it was reported that a breeder in their fur industry had been selecting for docile foxes. Over a period of about 40 years, he had not only achieved the desired trait, but in the process the animals snouts had shortened, their ears flopped, and their tails had acquired a curve. These other traits, which had been linked, but not actively selected for, are those which help distinguish domestic dogs from wild dogs.

      Starting in the 1920s the Heck brothers in Germany had tried the reverse with trying to undomesticate european cattle, in an attempt to bring back the Auroch. The result, the Heck Cattle, do have some resemblence to the Auroch, but this is probably coincidental, as the modern european stock they started from descends from the middle-east, and did not (apparently) interbreed much with the Auroch. They still got a wild-looking bovine with many of the appropriate traits.

      So, you can apply positive pressure (anything that looks like an Auroch gets to breed) or negative (anything that looks like a grand piano plus a few rack of billiard balls gets shot), but in the end it is simply that the expressed and perpetuated genome in the population is dependent upon those circumstances related to its being successfully transmitted. It's still evolution, but for once anthropomorphizing the source of the selective pressure is correct; someone made a decision about what kind of environment those animals would live in, but they made no conscious decision on how to respond. Nobody gets up one morning and says, "i'm going to evolve out of this elephantine lifestyle today".

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  4. I welcome it. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    I welcome it, just like seedless watermelons. The dang tusks keep getting caught in my cheek, and you never can find a good place to spit them out without seeming like a total slob.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:I welcome it. by arodland · · Score: 2, Funny

      so one time i was reading slashdot and there was this guy who was writing some crap about bananas or something and he grafted his sentences onto each other without using any kind of punctuation or anything and i think that he must have cloned his sentences or something and i got really bored reading it but then i thought wouldn't it be cool if i wrote a reply so i started typing

      so one time i was reading slashdot...

  5. Poacher of the last tusk by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, I'm going to be rich.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  6. Tuskless elephant jokes by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny
    Q: How do you shoot a blue tuskless elephant?
    A: With a blue tuskless elephant gun, of course.

    Q: How do you shoot a yellow tuskless elephant?
    A: Have you ever seen a yellow tuskless elephant?

    Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw the tuskless elephants coming over the hill?
    A: "Here come the tuskless elephants over the hill!"

    Q: How do you tell if there have been tuskless elephants in your refrigerator?
    A: Footprints in the peanut butter, and no rips in the saran wrap.

    Q: What did Charles de Gaulle say when he saw three tuskless elephants in sunglasses coming down the path?
    A: Ribbit.

    Q: What did Jane say when she saw the tuskless elephants over the hill?
    A: "Here come a bunch of grapes over the hill". She was colorblind.

    Q: How do you get down off an tuskless elephant?
    A: You don't. You get down off a duck.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Tuskless elephant jokes by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Funny

      This seems to be the appropriate thread for this:

      One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.

      Then we tried to remove the tusks. The tusks. That's not so easy to say. Tusks. You try it some time.

      As I say, we tried to remove the tusks. But they were embedded so firmly we couldn't budge them. Of course, in Alabama the Tuscaloosa, but that is entirely ir-elephant to what I was talking about.

      Groucho Marx, Animal Crackers

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  7. This one is bound to cause controversy by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have advocated this before , but one sure way to stiff up the elephant populations and to eliminate illegal poaching is to create elephant farms.
    In doing so we create a reputable ivory trade , a great source of work for the local communities ,a new source of food and a strong elephant population.
    I am not talking about factory farming as i find that disgusting , It should be rather free range .
    It could also double as a safari trip , ivory could be harvested via profitable hunts (then sold on , including selling of the meat) .

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:This one is bound to cause controversy by molo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not just harvest the ivory when the elephant develops maturely sized tusks, instead of killing the animal?

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    2. Re:This one is bound to cause controversy by SEE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Farming qua farming doesn't work so well with elephants, but South Africa already has a program where limited culls for ivory are allowed to those who set aside part of their land for elephants and other wildlife. Zimbabwe had a similar program, but with the recent wave of land seizures the system there has broken down. Kenya is strongly opposed, arguing that poached ivory would be laundered through legal ivory stocks.

  8. Realities Priorities by kenp2002 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fact that actions like this occur is more then likely based on immediate circumstances rather then a long drawn out through process. If I am staving and I find some apples the fact that I could take the apples and plant the seeds and have even more apples is more then likely going to be eclipsed by my immediate need to eat and the real necessity to hunt and gather NOW rather then farm LATER. Concerning the last tree, they may have cut it down for the immediate need of getting a fishing boat in order to eat NOW rather then the fact that there are no more trees to build boats LATER. In modern society, added with a touch of greed and self absorbtion, you get people who satisfy their needs (real or perceived) NOW rather then their kids needs LATER. Look at how many retire in their old age, no planning for LATER.

    Nothing suprising here... move along...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Realities Priorities by haggar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My simple objection is that poachers are not starving. They are members of organized crime gangs, often so powerful to be able to challenge the state institutions themselves. Poaching is a sistematic process, and it's very "well" tought out: the reason why poachers don't plan for the future (i.e. why they poach all they can and to hell sustainability) is because poaching gangs are compiting against each other. It's a destructive logic, and it makes me revolt, but it's logic.

      --
      Sigged!
  9. Do you know what "survival" means? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On CNN the other day, I heard this referred to as "survival of the fittest," which was one of the dumbest things I had heard in weeks. The anchor implied that because tuskless elephants used to be 5% of the elephant population and now they're 8%, this means that more elephants are being born with the tuskless gene, which could be completely false. If I have 100 elephants, 5 of them tuskless, and I kill 37 of the tusked elephants, 8% of the elephants are now tuskless - Darwin it ain't.

    THIS was one of the dummest thing I've read in weeks.

    If you kill elephants, and some survive because of a genetic trait: It's survival of the fittest.
    In this case, the fittest being the ones less likely to be shot due to a genetic predisposition to refrain from growing big shiny tusk with high resale value.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Do you know what "survival" means? by RedWizzard · · Score: 2, Informative
      You're assuming tusklessness is a genetic trait -- how do you know for sure that it is? Maybe tuskless elephants are just as likely to have tusked offspring as tusked elephants. Not that this is likely, but let's rule out the wacky-but-possible first.
      It's either genetic or environmental. And it appears to be occuring in all elephant populations (asian, indian, african, et al). So if it's environmental, it's a very widepread but subtle change. The chances of it not being genetic are vanishingly small.

      Tuskless elephants giving birth to tusked offspring (if they do), means nothing: it could be that the trait is recessive.

      Now here's the trick, you can't just say that tusklessness is passed on genetically because of the rise of tuskless elephants. As GP was pointing out, you get an increase in the incidence of tusklessness if you cull tusked elephants, even if it's not genetic. By itself the increase proves nothing; you have to do some statistics to figure out whether it's a genetically determined trait or just random.
      The post you refered to made a critical error: the author assumed that the percentage mentioned is the percentage of living elephants without tusks. It's not. It's the percentage of elephants being born without tusks. So culling will have no impact on that figure.
  10. Re:According to creationists... by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny
    But,... But,... But,... the two elephants brought aboard Noah's Ark had tusks! I remember that from all those pictures of the Noah's Ark story from bible study school!!!! :-)