Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Successful Merger of Butterfly Species

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the better-to-create-chaotic-futures dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) have recreated a real butterfly in the lab by crossing two other species of butterflies. This phenomenon, which is quite rare, is known as hybrid speciation. What is more surprising is that the hybrid butterfly has been created in just three generations of lab crosses. And BBC News tells us that the new butterfly species is a viable one, with its specific wing patterns which "make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species." In fact, this hybridization, which occurred without any changes to the chromosome number, could mean that it is an important factor in the origin of new animal species. Read more for many additional references and a comparison of wing patterns between hybrids and wild butterflies."

85 comments

  1. Corporations soon? by smvp6459 · · Score: 1, Funny

    If only they could manage this for corporate mergers...

  2. Makes me wonder by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny
    >Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species.

    So I wonder which species we would need to interbreed with to produced civilized human beings as offspring?

    --
    I Am My Own Worst Enemy
    1. Re:Makes me wonder by DreadSpoon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't possibly breed a "civilized" anything. A human baby today raised outside of civilization will not only fail to understand civilization, but will never be *able* to understand it once past a certain age. Certain parts of the brain don't develop in the necessary ways if they aren't stimulated early enough, like full language ability.

      That all goes back to "nature vs nurture" arguments.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder by enitime · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "A human baby today raised outside of civilization will not only fail to understand civilization, but will never be *able* to understand it once past a certain age. Certain parts of the brain don't develop in the necessary ways if they aren't stimulated early enough, like full language ability."


      Sadly, there have been a number of cases. None of whom could fully integrated into society. Children raised by wolves, dogs, monkeys, and recently in the news... chickens (no really!).

      See Feral Children for more information.

  3. Viable? by eikonoklastes · · Score: 1, Insightful
    the new butterfly species is a viable one, with its specific wing patterns which "make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species
    How viable are they as a species if they are unable to find partners for mating? (or am I reading that wrong?)
    1. Re:Viable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      You're reading that wrong.

    2. Re:Viable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The article is saying that they made Species C from A and B, and that A wouldn't want to mate with C, and B wouldn't either, but C's might mate with C's.

    3. Re:Viable? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      How viable are they as a species if they are unable to find partners for mating?

      They mean 'viable' in the sense that they can breed and are not sterile, like many hybrid animals (think donkeys) are. The wing patterns are probably mentioned because presumably these butterflies will breed with their own in the wild, building up a population of the species without merging with the parent species by interbreeding back with them until they are indistinguishable.

    4. Re:Viable? by aconbere · · Score: 2, Informative

      They can't/won't mate to produce viable offspring with their parent species (the species that were mixed to create the new one). But they WILL mate with their own species. Thus the signifier of a new species: that is, they can't/won't mate outside of their own species.

      ~ Anders

    5. Re:Viable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How in blazes can that be considered informative?

    6. Re:Viable? by enitime · · Score: 1
      "The wing patterns are probably mentioned because presumably these butterflies will breed with their own in the wild, building up a population of the species without merging with the parent species [snip]"


      And fortunately for them, insects produce a great number of progeny from every single mating. Which means they can likely find a significant number of partners from their siblings.

      I never really thought about it before, but I suppose this is one of the reasons there are so many insect species compared to other classes of animals (reptiles, mammals, etc.) I guess I assumed it was just because of the brief time between generations.

    7. Re:Viable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donkeys aren't sterile, mules are.

    8. Re:Viable? by HawkinsD · · Score: 1
      Uh... I think that you're talkin' mule, here, my friend, not donkey.

      Remember the formula: horse + donkey = mule

      See http://www.ruralheritage.com/mule_paddock/mule_com pare.htm

      Unless you mean honky. But that's a different branch of science.

      --
      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
    9. Re:Viable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But they WILL mate with their own species.

      Actually I wouldn't take for granted as butterflies are not known for looking at mirrors. However they seem to know how they look. From the article:

      The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.

      That probably means the very same genes responsible for wing pattern generation are also responsible for visual pattern recognition. A gene controls pigments produced in the wings and completely dissimilar information, wiring of visual neurons at the same time. A marvellous economy for genes.

    10. Re:Viable? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was an unusual technique. The female hybrids were sterile; the males could interbreed with one of the parent species. After multiple crosses, the resulting hybrids of both genders were fertile, and preferred to interbreed rather than cross-breed with the original parent species. Link here.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    11. Re:Viable? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I always get those confused.

  4. Why this is important ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In layman's terms...
    The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.

    1. Re:Why this is important ... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I thought that if the offspring weren't sterile, then the parents aren't different species -- they are, instead, subspecies. I'm sure there's some grey area in the definition, any geneticists care to help out?

      Shoot, look at human albinos. Not sterile, and not a different species. But historically, some populations of humans refused to allow them to reproduce (or even to live, in some cases). My questions: did the researchers artificially inseminate the hybrids with sperm from the original species? Did this produce offspring, and were they both viable and fertile?

      If the answer to these questions is yes, than this is just an example of preferential mating within subspecies, which IIRC has long been known to happen.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Why this is important ... by DreadSpoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not quite correct. It shows how two species can turn into three species.

      i.e., say you have some species the western part of some region, and another in the eastern part. As they migrate around, they may encounter each other and begin mating in the central part of the region. You now have the original species living in the west and east, and a new species in the middle.

    3. Re:Why this is important ... by enitime · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Hmm. I thought that if the offspring weren't sterile, then the parents aren't different species -- they are, instead, subspecies. I'm sure there's some grey area in the definition, any geneticists care to help out?"


      Not only a gray area, there is no real definition of species. The consensus seems to be something along the lines of "distinct population groups that generally don't interbreed". Not that they can't, not that they don't, just that they usually don't.

      For example, I seem to recall that all (or maybe just most) of the members of the Canidae family (That's dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals etc.) can interbreed. I don't remember exactly though... it could have just been the Canis genus (dogs, wolves, jackals), or maybe I'm just mistaken. Anyone else know?

    4. Re:Why this is important ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Dogs and wolves (and coyotes) can interbreed freely, and will do so given opportunity. The offspring are fertile without qualification.

      Dogs and foxes can and (rarely) do mate, but there are seldom offspring, and to my understanding any such offspring are sterile, like a mule (offspring of a horse and a donkey).

      I don't know about jackals.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Why this is important ... by Oersoep · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it the number of chromosomes that (partly) determines wether or not two species can interbreed? Different numbers won't mix is my guess...

    6. Re:Why this is important ... by plunge · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's not even true among primates (who are amongst the most intolerant of different chromosome numbers), and it's definately not true in general. While it can certainly signal some major genetic differences that might lead to incompatibility, it doesn't demonstrate them.

      Heck, there are many human beings walking around right now, today, with varying numbers of chromosomes, and they are not necessarily sterile. How this all works is immensely complicated (since there become tons of different combinations of the chromosomes that can be created, some non-viable, some viable, some viable but sterile, etc.)

    7. Re:Why this is important ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Number of chromosomes influences not so much whether they can interbreed (that can happen anyway if the total array isn't TOO different) but rather, whether the offspring are fertile or not. And even then it's not 100% -- frex, there have been a few fertile mules. But as a general rule, mammals (and AFAIK, birds) don't successfully crossbreed outside their own genus.

      But the further you get away from mammals, the fuzzier it gets. Frex, plants do all sorts of freaky things with chromosomes (and may have one, two, three, or four sets, and maybe more for all I know), and can occasionally crossbreed within the same family, not just within the same genus as with mammals.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  5. About time... by EnderGT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this story gets posted... I only submitted it 5 days ago (and had it rejected)... Is there some secret handshake I need to learn to get a story accepted?

    1. Re:About time... by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

      You need to be a Stonecutters member.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  6. marketing potential by Kalinago · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I once read an article about the possibilities of engineering butterfly wing patterns to produce, lets say, a well known brand logo. So you could have swarms of live "nike", "samsung" banners fluttering all over your garden.

    Guess this means we are one step closer to such reality. this is so Dystopian.

  7. Start your stopwatches . . . . by Badgerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long will it take for this to be dragged into the Intelligent Design community as "proof" that "Darwinism" is wrong for some reason?

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    1. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Funny

      How long will it take for this to be dragged into the Intelligent Design community as "proof" that "Darwinism" is wrong for some reason?

      You are misjudging fundamentalist christians. They don't talk about butterflies. The subject is just a little too 'flamboyant' and their rampant homophobia will stifle any conversation that might lead others to think, for any reason, that they might secretly be aroused by the thought of butt sex.

    2. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one common mistake is that people use darwins theories to say evolution is correct, but all his theories say is that if you survive better then something else, then you become dominant. that is not an evolutionary theory, it is just a theory that evolutionists use to demonstrate how in the case some mutation did create a benefit, that the one with the mutation would become dominant. darwins theories were not tested with wide mutated genetic variables, all of his theories were done with regular genetic variation.

      ps: i'm not anonymous coward, i just can't remember my sign in information since i hardly ever post.

    3. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      one common mistake is that people use darwins[sic] theories to say evolution is correct, but all his theories say is that if you survive better then something else, then you become dominant.

      Have you read Darwin's work? He postulates a number of things. One is that animals that survive better breed more. One is that hereditary traits make an animal more or less likely to survive. He postulates specifically that species subjected to a specific stress will adapt based upon these two mechanisms. He calls this, "evolution."

      darwins[sic] theories were not tested with wide mutated genetic variables, all of his theories were done with regular genetic variation.

      Darwin did not do any real testing, only observation and hypothesis. Others tested his theories via a wide range of mechanisms, from predictions about the fossil record to direct induction of large amounts of mutagens and specific stresses. I''m not sure what you mean by "regular genetic variation" as applied to this particular subject. What Darwin did not theorize about (in his popular written works), but which is often erroneously attributed to him is a theory of the origin of life. Maybe you're thinking of Lavorkian, who proposed evolution based not upon heredity, but upon changes in a creature within its lifespan?

    4. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by turgid · · Score: 1

      You've already been modded "Flamebait" :-)

      --
      Stick Men
    5. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      'One is that animals that survive better breed more. One is that hereditary traits make an animal more or less likely to survive.'

      that's what i meant by becoming dominant.

      'He postulates specifically that species subjected to a specific stress will adapt based upon these two mechanisms. He calls this, "evolution."'

      this is the part i dissagree with in his theories, because of what he studied, the differences were not that they had different genetics then their ancestors, but certain genes, some that may have lain dormant for generations, became more dominant based on the local environment (this is what i meant by regular genetic variation). this to me is not evolution, just adaptation, which are two different things.

      it's just like how there are so many races of people, yet we are all still humans; isolation from other groups, along with environmental conditions, provided for the different genes to become dominant and some genes that are dominant in one race are very rare, or non-existent in other races.

      i don't mean to start any arguments on evolution or anything, i know that i will believe what i will, just as anyone else is going to believe what they will, and that nobody will know who's right until death.

    6. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lemarkian, from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

    7. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by plunge · · Score: 1

      "i don't mean to start any arguments on evolution or anything, i know that i will believe what i will, just as anyone else is going to believe what they will, and that nobody will know who's right until death."

      i.e. "since I know that my view isn't supported by the evidence and yours is, I'm going to declare that all evidence is useless and no one can know anything, it's all just belief and I don't want to play a game I know I will lose."

      Not unlike knocking over the chessboard once your queen has been captured.

      Fact is, new genetic variations crop up all the time. We aren't just shuffling existing genes (if that were true, if there were only some finite store of functional genes, then gene pools would become less and less diverse over time as certain genes became rare and died out and were never replaced with new ones). Instead, we see just the opposite over time: genetic diversity increasing. If anything, natural selection slows down, but usualy cannot stop, the normal rates of genetic change and diversification.

    8. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "he did no real testing"? What the heck do you think predictive hypotheses are?

      Of course he tested his theories, by making predictions based on them as to the existence of new species, and the phenotypes of new species.

      One of the most famous is the prediction, upon learning of a flower with a very, very long tube that a species would be discovered that would have a very long tongue in which to get at the nectar at the base of it. Some years after his death, the hawk moth, with a tongue length of 30 cm was discovered.

      Of course that is real testing. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

    9. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      It's just not my day. First I mix up donkeys and mules, then I completely botch that name. Maybe I should sleep more than 5 hours a night.

    10. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Badgerman · · Score: 1

      . . . my first time actually that I recall. I had hoped for "Funny" but I admit I can see why.

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    11. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "he did no real testing"? What the heck do you think predictive hypotheses are?

      They are hypothesis, not experiments (AKA tests). He composed a number of hypothesis, but others tested them with experiments by observing natural phenomenon that matched his hypothesis.

      Of course that is real testing. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

      I don't particularly want to engage in a semantic argument. I don't think it is ridiculous at all.

    12. Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i barely remember writing that stuff yesterday.... maybe i shouldn't drink while playing oblivion till 4am then coming into work on 2 hours of sleep, it was a monday for sure.

      i know evolution happens at the least to an extent, i mean look at virus's and bacteria; if you don't take all of your medication as instructed some of the survivors can develope imunities and start a new strand that is not affected by the prior medication.

      just because i don't believe evolution is how we got here, does not mean i deny it's existence.

  8. On a positive note: by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    The offspring is not only in line to become CEO of Butterfly Inc., but it also qualifies for subsidized loans from the National Association for the Advancement of Hybrid Butterflies.

  9. What is speciation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For a long time one argument of the creationists against evolution has been that scientists haven't witnessed speciation. Speciation was supposed to be the creation of a new species from another. The definition of a new species, at least as far as I was aware until recently, was that the individuals could not breed with one another and produce viable offspring.

    Maybe I am wrong on that definition of a species. I have seen numerous references to animals that can breed with one another as being different species. If you stuck to this defintion strictly, lions and tigers are just variations of the same species, as is nearly the entire dog family from wolves to coyotes to chihuahuas to great danes, and polar bears and grizzly bears.

    In any case, while this is cool it doesn't seem to me to be fitting the strict definition of witnessing speciation. The butterflies COULD breed with each other, the scientists just don't think they will try.

    BTW, before you mod me down, I don't believe in creationism or any of that claptrap == I'm not saying this as an attack on evolution is which clearly what happens, I just don't think this is that surprising a result. I'm sure wolves will mostly kill chihuahuas if they cath one, not mate with it, but I think they still count as the same species.

    1. Re:What is speciation ? by plunge · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that species is really only a very vaguely useful term. The line between "will not/cannot" breed with each other (and usually "in the wild" is added to this) is very very fuzzy, and there are many stages of compatibility in between, from sterile offspring, to rarely viable offspring, to rarely fertile offspring, and so on. Often species that will not breed in the wild under normal conditions will if conditions (or light levels, for instance) change.

      "The butterflies COULD breed with each other, the scientists just don't think they will try."

      As i noted, not reproducing without human intervention IS a barrier for defining speciation. That's why spinner dolphins and false killer whales are considered different species, even though wolphins exist in captivity. Chiclids, for instance, will only mate with certain colored fellow chiclids, but if you alter the light conditions so that they cannot make out the distinctions, then they will mate.

      And so on.

      One thing that I often find strange is that given the wide wide range of diversity amongst animals that are all of the same species (say, domestic dogs), people find it so hard to believe that speciation can happen, especially given that many genetically incompatible species are far far more similar to each other than dogs are morphologically. Two populations becoming genetically incompatible is really not much different from how they become visually different: it's just that the genetic changes in question happen to be working on more core reproductive elements rather than outward looks.

    2. Re:What is speciation ? by Jthon · · Score: 1

      The definition of species is not as simple as you seem to think. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_o f_species for a definition.

    3. Re:What is speciation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here --

      I agree that speciation happens and should not be considered surprising given the variation within species that can be produced in just a few generations.

      However, I reject the vague definition of species you talk about. I have been looking at the wikipedia article on species, and they list a number of different kinds of species definitions, including those based on geographical isolation.

      The fact is, those definitions just aren't very useful. If a flood or storm can suddenly change a bunch of individuals from being in different species to being in the same species, then what's the point of the word "species" ? I agree with the other poster in this discussion, who suggested that a lot of egotism and specie-naming career building might be involved.

      Are there any scientists in the field of science ?

    4. Re:What is speciation ? by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      Does that mean hot blonde supermodel chicks and slashdot geeks are different species? :)

    5. Re:What is speciation ? by plunge · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your point is. Biologists are the very FIRST people to admit that species is a very hard thing to nail down (there are even bigger problems that I haven't even touched upon that deal with transitions through time). You can't "reject the vauge definition of species" I talk about. It is one of the accepted definitions, and definitions are a matter of usage, not opinion.

      Egotism has nothing to do with it. The reason species concepts are sloppy is because trying to give concrete names to ever shifting and moving targets is always ill-suited to the job, and yet is necessary because human beings need named classifications and simplifications to process information quickly.

      Understanding why and how species is a very complicated concept is one of the key insights to understanding what evolution is and how it works.

    6. Re:What is speciation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Egotism has nothing to do with it. The reason species concepts are sloppy is because trying to give concrete names to ever shifting and moving targets is always ill-suited to the job, and yet is necessary because human beings need named classifications and simplifications to process information quickly.
      Then why are they still publishing new articles of the type "new species found" on both specialist and layman journals? Why not use the term "variety" (or another general term) rather than "species"? One expects terms used in science to have formal definitions, rather than vague one, but "species" apparent does not, and give the pretense that it does, which is misleading.
    7. Re:What is speciation ? by plunge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't misleading at all. Discussions about the difficulty in defining species has been going on for some time now, very publically. You can't use the term variety because you aren't dealing with simple varieties. You are dealing with separate and distinct populations that can and only interbreed under some very artificial and rare circumstances, and then not always reliably. Furthermore, you're dealing with things that have been classed as species since before evolutionary biology even existed.

      There are attempts being made to create new terminology: look at cladistics (which basically just uses numbers instead of names). But getting everyone to adopt the same system isn't easy: not because of some grand conspiracy, but simply because of habit, difference of opinion on the right way to do it, and so forth.

      But what "pretense" are you suggesting anyone is trying to maintain by calling a new type of butterfly (that doesn't interbreed with other parent species) a species? What's wrong or misleading about it?

    8. Re:What is speciation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pretense that there is a clear distinction between "species" and generic type (or "variety" or "kind" or etc.). None of that "public" debate on the definition of the term is reflected in elementary biology textbooks, is it, even though the problem with the existing definition has been known for a long time. And despite the problem, biologists continue to publish new findings that use the term, choosing whichever aspect of the definition that fit their purpose. You know, in science, you are supposed to either modify or discard notions that have been discredited, not keep it around for the sake of "tradition". That just is not happening in this field. Pity, too, because it gives impression that biology is more like sociology than science.

    9. Re:What is speciation ? by plunge · · Score: 1

      "None of that "public" debate on the definition of the term is reflected in elementary biology textbooks, is it,"

      Of course it is. Defining and explaining the biological species concept, which is the primary definition of species used in biology, and the problems it and any definition of species has is common in almost every textbook I've read.

      "And despite the problem, biologists continue to publish new findings that use the term, choosing whichever aspect of the definition that fit their purpose."

      Bull. This simply doesn't happen. Most biologists use the term as defined by the biological species concept, with full understanding of its limitations (i.e. no bright lines, doesn't help with asexual organisms, etc.). The idea that genetic interbreedability should be the sole definition of species is simply baseless and just as unworkable as any other. Whether populations mate in the wild is a perfectly good point to pick on a fuzzy spectrum, and it's a point biologists have discussed, used, and talked about for decades.

  10. but will it eat ..... by nblender · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cane Toads?

  11. better not get bitten by one... by justkarl · · Score: 3, Funny

    because we can now call it a "super-butterfly". It has all of the traits of the other butterflies, including super-strength, "butterfly-sense", and agility. Eventually

    Think of the poor bastard superhero who is created by getting bit by this "super-butterfly" and has to live out his days with the secret identity of BUTTERFLY-MAN!!!

    1. Re:better not get bitten by one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you Venture, I told you to call me The Monarch!

    2. Re:better not get bitten by one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about a butterfly-man, but a butterfly-girl, I'd be willing to see!

    3. Re:better not get bitten by one... by antdude · · Score: 1

      You mean the butterfly man mascot for MSN? [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  12. Chaos ensues. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what new and exciting effects will we get when these fancy new butterflies flap their wings?

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  13. People's Goatse Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Join the Revolution, Support the People's Goatse Party!

    We support super-butterflys!

    1. Re:People's Goatse Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, maybe I shall join this party.

  14. News Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butterfly species merge. 1000 caterpillars layed off as butterfly development now is outsourced to India. Industry pundits give the new super-butterfly species kudos for the long-awaited restructuring.

  15. The meaning of "species" by rdmiller3 · · Score: 1

    When I went to school, the word "species" signified the widest variation of biologic form which could interbreed to create fertile offspring. A horse and a donkey, for example, were considered to be different 'species' because although the could be interbred, their offspring were (99.9999%) infertile and could not reproduce "after their own kind."

    Speciation is not determined by the organisms' willingness to interbreed but by whether or not a cross-breed between them can be genetically viable.

    Now though, biologists go out in the field and see some plant or animal which only appears to be different in form or behavior, and they go ahead and call it a "new species" without testing whether or not it can be interbred. I can understand that they don't have the resources to test such things all the time but that's no excuse for claiming that it's a new species. Look at domestic dogs, how drastically different they are... but they can all be interbred; they're all dogs. Then look at bears. Grizzly bears and polar bears are presented as separate species but zookeepers have known for decades that they can interbreed and now they've found instances of wild grizzly-polar half-breeds. The half-breeds are fertile. They are clearly of the same "species".

    So, do they correct their books? Do they revise the texts?
    No.

    These aren't real scientists, they're egotists pressing for the status quo and presenting evidence against their beliefs as though it were something nearly impossible.

    1. Re:The meaning of "species" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, the importance of the research is still there, since the unwillingness to breed with the hybrid offspring indicates a method by which speciation occurs. Basically, it indicates isolation of the subspecies via absolute preferential breeding, instead of geographic isolation preventing interbreeding, which is the most common hypothesis for branching speciation instead of linear evolution.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:The meaning of "species" by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 1

      The problem is, nature isn't very good at fitting into the tidy little categories that appear in all our textbooks. This is why scientists keep having to re-evaluate those categories whenever they find something that doesn't fit, and sometimes, yes, definitions change.

      I've read about one particular trio of species where species A could breed with species B (producing viable offspring), species B could breed with species C (again, producing viable offspring), but species A could not breed with species C. How would you classify them? By the old textbook definition, A and B are the same species, as are B and C, but A and C are not -- this presents an obvious problem.

      You also have to consider that many textbooks, particularly highschool or early university-level books, over-simplify pretty much everything. When learning something new, it's a lot easier to imagine that everything does fit nicely into categories and follow clearly specified patterns, so that's what's taught.

    3. Re:The meaning of "species" by thefirelane · · Score: 1

      >How would you classify them?

      ring species

    4. Re:The meaning of "species" by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but I meant as multiple species vs. single species :) In any case, they remain an interesting anomoly when you're trying to decide what is and what isn't a distinct species.

    5. Re:The meaning of "species" by SEE · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um? Just because you were taught a definition of "species" in school doesn't mean that's the actual definition.

      There a serious difficulties with the "interbreeding makes viable, reproduction-capable offspring" one. One is that it isn't binary. There is an entire range over "no descendants", "sterile descendants", "high miscarriage rate but some nonsterile descendants", and a dozen other variations. If the result of a crossbreeding is 90% of the time spontaneous abortion, but 10% of the time a fertile animal? What about crosbreeds being technically viable and nonsterile, but so sickly they can't survive outside of lab conditions? There are, as pointed out elsewhere, cases where populations A and C can both interbreed viably with B, but not with each other; how does one classify them?

      Further, it provides no guidance whatsoever in the case of organisms with non-sexual reproduction, because the test can't even be applied. So at best, the sexual reproduction definition of species cannot provide guidance for classification for over 90% of the biomass of Earth. If there was a perfectly clear and sensible definition of species for asexual reproducers, and applied to sexual reproducers it sometimes divided sexual reproducers into different species and other times groups non-crossable animals into a single species, shouldn't we go with it anyway because it gives us a general rule instead of a bunch of special cases that apply to only a tiny minority of organisms on Earth?

      There is, as it happens, no actual consensus in the biosciences on the definitions of any of the cladistic terms, merely a general rough working agreement with ten thousand disputed cases. You can't violate the definition of species, because there isn't one.

    6. Re:The meaning of "species" by plunge · · Score: 1

      "after their own kind."

      Sorry, but this term never had much meaning in terms of science. Science demands that you be specific and precise. "After their own kind" is like a kindergardner-level of understanding of biology.

      "Speciation is not determined by the organisms' willingness to interbreed but by whether or not a cross-breed between them can be genetically viable."

      The problem is, there is no hard and fast line for what this means either. Often species that we thought could never be genetically viable when bred together turn out to be under certain conditions. Abalone sperm, for instance, causes rapid speciation because of the way it acts as a sort of passcode lock/key system that's always changing. But there's no underlying genetic incompatibility once the sperm gets through the lock. We can artificially get the sperm in... so do they count as a separate species or not? We always thought that camels and llamas couldn't interbreed.... but then they did after an extensive crossbreeding experiment with tons and tons of failures. We STILL don't even know for sure whether chimps and humans can interbreed or not (and we won't be trying to find out anytime soon). There is no hard and fast line as to what "genetically viable" means. Some hybrids are fertile only with other hybrids. Some are fertile only with one type of parent, some the other. Some are only sometimes fertile. Some are very often sterile, but in rare cases fertile.

      Why is it so complicated? Because that's just the nature of evolutionary biology: there are no easy categorical solutions.

      "So, do they correct their books? Do they revise the texts? No."

      You are a liar. Even the most elementary textbooks DO try to address all these complications, and they DO discuss quite extensively why the term "species" is very hard to nail down to a single common meaning. There is no universal definition of species. Heck, plenty of animals are ASEXUAL. How the heck does your supposed definition apply to THEM? Do you really think scientists COVER UP all of this information?

  16. They changed the definition of species because by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    genetics changed their understanding of the term.

    I understand your annoyance - by the current definition of a "reproductively distinct population" the various races of man were different "species" until the advent of large scale immigration - which caused all these species to collapse into a single species.

    But, at the same time, you can't really blame the scientists - it's not their fault that after centuries of carefully classifying creatures based on what they saw the creatures doing, DNA analysis comes along and throws it all out the window.

    Not to mention sex drive and a lack of discrimination. I think the classic example is the "red wolf" - originally thought to be an extinct species it now turns out to be what you get when wolves and coyotes share the same range.

    --
    Clear, Dark Skies
    1. Re:They changed the definition of species because by rdmiller3 · · Score: 1
      I understand your annoyance - by the current definition of a "reproductively distinct population" the various races of man were different "species" until the advent of large scale immigration - which caused all these species to collapse into a single species.

      Okay, so show me the scientist who will publicly say that Europeans and Africans were separate "species", and ask them when they think the species "merged". No, the fact is that so-called scientists are using whichever definition is most convenient for their purpose at the time. That is what annoys me.

      In Real Science(tm), they stick with the original definition and say "Hmmm, well I guess the grey wolf, red wolf, coyote, jackal, and dog really aren't separate species, just drastically different breeds." Or else they should apply the same reasoning to everything else and say that europeans, asians and africans are still separate species. Pick one definition and quit flipping back and forth as if people weren't biologically just as classifyable as animals.

      Personally, I think we should stick with the old definition. All people are the same species. Dogs, coyotes, jackals, and wolves can interbreed so they're all one species. etc.

    2. Re:They changed the definition of species because by plunge · · Score: 1

      "No, the fact is that so-called scientists are using whichever definition is most convenient for their purpose at the time. That is what annoys me."

      But since that's not actually what's happening, the real problem here is that you are confused about what is going on.

      "Personally, I think we should stick with the old definition."

      First of all, that wasn't the "old definition." You were simply misinformed, or misunderstood. Unless you are around 80 years old, the biological species concept (i.e. populations that do not interbreed) has been around longer than you've been alive. Second of all, your definition is rife with so many problems that it's unworkable anyway, as has been pointed out to you many times.

  17. Physician, heal thy own ego... by ianscot · · Score: 1

    Biologists themselves admit that "species" has no universally accepted, absolute definition. In fact all levels of taxonomy are subjected to constant scrutiny, and major revisions are entirely possible. To wit: in the last 15 years or so the "domain," a level above "kingdom," has become commonly accepted. We're talking about the highest level of the taxonomy changing due to persuasive new arguments. And yet you're telling me scientists never change due to their egotism?

    The world is much wilder than you imagine, and your grudge against science is far less helpful than you imagine too. Sample quote from the supposed egotists you so disdain:

    In part, this reflects the problem in biology that different organisms, even some closely related types, display a remarkable and bewildering number of ways of reproducing. For example, animals that reproduce unisexually (parthenogenetically) do not interbreed at all, yet they produce viable offspring. Nevertheless, all the individuals in such a population of parthenogenetic organisms share a common line of descent or ancestry. In this case a phylogenetic definition is particularly useful. On the other hand, many animals and most of the orchids (a huge family of flowers with some 26,000 species--more than all the fishes) can hybridize and produce new species in a single generation. Among the American whiptail lizards are several parthenogenetic species that we now know are the hybrid result of matings between sexual species sometime in the past (the formation of a new species via hybridization is termed reticulate evolution). Add to this variety species, such as many snails and flatworms, that are hermaphroditic (containing the reproductive systems of both sexes) and occasionally self-fertilizing, and you can see how the problem of agreeing on a single, all-encompassing species definition becomes quite unlikely.

    It seems to me you're not listening to all that, out of ego needs of your own.

    they go ahead and call it a "new species" without testing whether or not it can be interbred.

    Your version of confirming a new species would proceed how, again? Testing to see if each newly-found animal can interbreed with, what, every possible roughly comparable species? Are you at all familiar with modern cladistics, or with how paleontologists go about discussing species in extinct animals? Is this a case where the one thing you learned is what you're clinging to dogmatically, lest you be cast loose into the wild world, or what?

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  18. IANAIBMFI by miscz · · Score: 1

    (I am not an ichtiologist but my father is), mixing species of fish is rather easy (as mixing sperm and eggs of similar ones) and can happen by coincidence. I guess it's even easier with insects since they are more complicated creatures.

  19. Obligatory by Regulus · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new butterfly overlords.

    --
    I want to live forever, or die trying.
  20. Do you really not know? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    I would have thought anyone who survived highschool would have realized that the geeks were a different species.

    --
    Clear, Dark Skies
  21. Study funded by MS? by blueZ3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let me guess, one wing is red, one blue, one green, and one yellow, and each wing has a tiny spot that looks strangely like the letters "m" and "s"

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  22. I'd be more impressed... by SurturZ · · Score: 1

    ...if it was a half-elf butterfly.

  23. Intelligent merger! Yeah, right! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    And just how many genes were "made redundant" by this merger? Think of the alleles going hungry tonight because their parent chromosomes have lost their jobs. It's capitalism run wild, I tell you...

    --
    That is all.
  24. Not wanting to mate makes a different species? by pookemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it interesting that H. cydno and H. melpomene would mate, yet neither would mate with H. heurippa.

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
  25. Lawyers ... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, the monarch species has field a suit with the Federal Trade Commission, claiming that the merger creates a monopoly on frangiapana pollination, which they are attempting to leverage into a hostile milkweed pod takeover.

    --

    The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
  26. Did you actually read what I wrote? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    I was pointing out the illogic of the current definition of "species" - not claiming that the different races were different species.

    --
    Clear, Dark Skies
  27. Just out of curiosity by dmearns · · Score: 1

    How does the butterfly know what its own wings look like? I can understand selective breeding changing the patterns on the wings. Doesn't the article imply a simultaneous change to the butterfly's brain to make it want to mate with individuals displaying the new pattern, and shun those with either of the parent patterns? What mechanism keeps those two changes in lockstep? Wouldn't it be more likely that the hybrid butterflys would be attracted to one or the other parent species, who would reject them because of their weird appearance?

  28. One rethorical and one non-rethorical question by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    Did it ever occur to you that you have different genetics than your parents? (This fact, repeated over generations, is what evolutionists call evolution).

    How do you distinguish evolution from adaptation, how YOU define each one?

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  29. Not likely, but if he cared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet that jackass who murdered that polar bear/grizzly bear hybrid feels like a real ass now.

  30. Symbiogenesis by Dragon+Fae · · Score: 1

    Is hybrid speciation related to symbiogenesis? It sounds like they are compatable, anyway. The only difference being that I think symbiogenesis is macro-evolution, while hybrid speciation would be considered micro. According to Lynn Margulis, an examply of symbiogenesis includes things like mitochondria and cloroplasts, which apparently were absorbed into another species by a predatory action, and then the new result was considered a seprate species. (Admitting, there's is also a popular theory that the relationship was not predator-prey, but mutualism.) The implications of hybrid speciation seem promising, though.

    --
    Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement? - SMAC