Artificial Misting System Allows Reintroduction of Extinct Toad

terrancem writes "The Kihansi Spray Toad went extinct in the wild in 2005 when its habitat in Tanzania was destroyed by a dam. However conservationists at the Bronx Zoo managed to maintain a captive population which is now large enough to allow a bold experiment to move forward: reintroducing the toad into its old habitat. To make the once tropical gorge moist again, engineers have designed an artificial misting system that should allow toads to survive in the wild. The effort marks what may be the first time conservationists have ever re-established an 'extinct' species in a human-engineered ecosystem."

Comments

Extinct?

[rotorbudd]

If there was a captive population all along how could the species be extinct?
Good job editors.

Re:Extinct?

[Rockoon]

The lesson that we can take away from this is that good editors should have been kept in zoos too.

Re:Extinct?

[immaterial]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!

Re:Extinct?

[davmoo]

The editors are correct. It very clearly says "extinct in the wild". "In the wild" does not include "in captivity".

Re:Extinct?

[Neil_Brown]

Indangered yes

"Endangered," or "in danger," but not "indangered" :)

Re:Extinct?

[Murdoch5]

My bad! either way, not extinct.

Re:Extinct?

[dywolf]

And the call is....no foul on the editors! The summary says right there "extinct in the wild"

Extinct in the wild is a valid classification, used when biologists are unable to confirm a types existence in...the wild..., or when they are only able to find 1 or 2 specimens, which is also sometimes called "functionally extinct". such as the last of one of the giant tortoise subspecies that died recently, that was the sole remaining member known, and male, and as such totally unable to breed and continue the (sub)species.

So you are very very -NOT- insightful.

Re:Extinct?

[Imrik]

The wording used in the article (and the summary for that matter) is "extinct in the wild." The captive population would therefore not count. Whether the reintroduced population would count is debatable though.

Re:Extinct?

[dywolf]

RTFA: "extinct int he wild"

Re:Extinct?

[arth1]

Once humans die out or someone turns off the system, then these toads are toast.

Mmm, toasted toad...

Seriously, if an artificial misting system is needed to keep them alive, the chances of their survival is none. I give it max 20 years before it gets turned off for budgetary concerns or maintenance neglect, or conflicts with local people who wants the land and its resources.

http://www.google.com/search?q=failed+conservation+efforts+in+tanzania

Any which way, they'll croak.

Re:Extinct?

[arth1]

The editors are correct. It very clearly says "extinct in the wild". "In the wild" does not include "in captivity".

Even when in Manhattan?

 

 

Re:Extinct?

[Neil_Brown]

RTFA: "extinct int he wild"

I think that's where I struggle as, to me, that's not possible - something is either extinct or not. Attempting to qualify extinction negates the meaning of extinction, to my understanding of term.

To me, it's a bit like saying "after surgery, he recovered from the fatal gunshot."

Re:Extinct?

[crazyjj]

extinct

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it does.

Re:Extinct?

[Saithe]

Any which way, they'll croak.

XD
How long did it take you to think that one up?

Re:Extinct?

[Smauler]

It's an official IUCN category, so it seems you've lost the fight.

Anyway, people have been referring to things being extinct in certain areas for ages. This is a list of animals extinct from the UK.

Re:Extinct?

[Rockoon]

Thats like calling you dead because you are dead in the future. Sometimes the act of using qualifying terminology undoes the terminology itself.

Re:Extinct?

[dunkelfalke]

No, this is like calling you dead because the only reason why you are still breathing is that you are hanging on a life support machine.

Re:Extinct?

[dywolf]

How is that any different from any other human managed habitat? Lakes stocked with fish from hatcheries, dams with fish ladders, wildlife preserves and parks that are artificially kept "wild" by eliminating "invasive" species from the neighborhood of houses across the street...etc, etc. All are managed habitats. This is simply less passive more active.

Re:Extinct?

[Neil_Brown]

It's an official IUCN category

Interesting - thanks!

so it seems you've lost the fight.

Perhaps more "been given some helpful information" — are conversations really fights?!

Re:Extinct?

[arielCo]

The Kihansi Spray Toad went extinct in the wild in 2005 when its habitat in Tanzania was destroyed by a dam.

Extinct in the Wild (EW) is a conservation status assigned to species or lower taxa, the only known living members of which are being kept in captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_in_the_Wild

Re:Extinct?

[mcgrew]

Not only is your comment redundant, it's wrong. I'm redundant, too, when I point out (as has already been done) that it's extinct IN THE WILD. That's accurate. You just missed three words is all.

Re:Extinct?

[CastrTroy]

Unfortunately, shortening the headline and changing the meaning is not a good practice. See the two following headlines.

Residents of New York Still Without Power

Residents of New York Still Without Power Gloves

See how I didn't change the meaning at all by chopping off the end of that headline.

Re:Extinct?

[bhartman34]

Not really. Someone who is on a life support machine isn't necessarily really alive. (You can have no appreciable brain activity and still be made to breathe, a la Terri Schiavo.) The frogs, on the other hand, are every bit as "not extinct" as they would be if they were placed anywhere else. Extinct means there are no examples of the species left. I assume the frogs would be extinct at some point if you put them back without the artificial misting in place, but they're not extinct now.

Re:Extinct?

[readin]

It depends on whether the mist system can outlast the dam. The mist system is only needed because of the dam. And the article's description of the system makes no reference to electricity or other human intervention for making the system work. The question is, if abandoned by the humans will the mist system continue working long enough to keep the frogs alive until the dam collapses and the original waterfall habitat returns.

Re:Extinct?

[geekoid]

Yes, if you take it out of context and to a ridiculous extreme end, you have a point. That removing words can change meaning. well done.

In this headline, the shortened version is fine.

Re:Extinct?

[N!k0N]

The phrase "in the wild" is key here. Your homework assignment is to figure out why.

Re:Extinct?

[hesiod]

Perhaps more "been given some helpful information" — are conversations really fights?!

Them's fightin' words, buddy!

Re:Extinct?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

No it's not. The meaning of "reintroduction of extinct toad" is orders of magnitude more impressive than "reintroduction of toads extinct in the wild". I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so.

Re:Extinct?

[Rockoon]

Not really. Someone who is on a life support machine isn't necessarily really alive.

If a single microbe or spore of anything biological were ever to be found on mars, the headlines would in fact read "LIFE FOUND ON MARS!" complete with an exclamation point. Just saying...

Re:Extinct?

[Murdoch5]

Your home work is to read titles.

Artificial Misting System Allows Reintroduction of Extinct Toad.

Where in that title does it say wild? It should say

Artifical Misting System Allows Reintroduction of Endangered Toad

By using the word Extinct in the title the post to follow implies that regardless of location the toad is exinct.

Re:Extinct?

[arth1]

The Bronx. They're in The Bronx Zoo. There is no Manhattan Zoo.

On the contrary. There just is no fence around the Manhattan Zoo.

A very unusual toad

[serviscope_minor]

These toads are very unusual. The noise of the waterfall makes croking an impractical method of communication. They instead use hand signals to communicate.

Re:A very unusual toad

[GDI Lord]

And here I thought what made them unusual was that they could spontaneously change sex...

Re:A very unusual toad

[Loosifur]

Do you have a reference for that? Because I just blew twenty minutes looking for videos of frogs signing to each other when I could have been watching porn.

Re:A very unusual toad

[martin-boundary]

Why weren't you watching porn *while* looking for videos of frogs signing each other? Does it really take that much concentration to watch the former?

Re:A very unusual toad

[Loosifur]

No, but the resulting juxtaposition just does weird things to you after awhile. You start getting some funny ideas when you see Kermit on television, that sort of thing.

Re:A very unusual toad

[craigminah]

Drivers in Washington DC can't communicate on the highways and instead use hand signals to communicate with other drivers. Kind of an interesting adaptation...

If a species has gone extinct in the wild should humans reintroduce them? I assume species go extinct because they are nonviable...who the heck are we to play God when the reintroduced species will most likely suffer and/or perish again.

Re:A very unusual toad

[riT-k0MA]

Not strictly true.
The dense vegetation makes it implausible for the frogs to communicate by hand signals alone. Rather it is thought they use a mix of body language and ultrasonic sound over a short distance in order to communicate.
The Ultrasonic part is only a guess as the middle part of the frogs ear is not air-filled, and the inner part of the ear does not seem to be connected to any outer surface of the frog. This can be tested, but the scientists can't exactly vivisect a critically-endangered animal, so they have to guess.

Re:A very unusual toad

[rainmouse]

If a species has gone extinct in the wild should humans reintroduce them? I assume species go extinct because they are nonviable...who the heck are we to play God when the reintroduced species will most likely suffer and/or perish again.

They became nonviable because we destroyed their habitat. It seems strange that you consider undoing damage we have caused as somehow playing God, but not the actual acts of habitat destruction, extinction of species and land modification. What is it about Bible thumping that goes hand in hand with corporate cash flow without moral recompense?

Re:A very unusual toad

[Rockoon]

If you are anti-religious, as you seem to elude to, then you must accept that we are natural beings and are not the only ones that advantageously alter their habitat without regard for the consequences to other natural beings.

You have not refuted his point. You have unwittingly supported it.

Re:A very unusual toad

[slashmydots]

These toads are very unusual. The noise of the waterfall makes croking an impractical method of communication. They instead use hand signals to communicate.

Then why didn't they signal to the authors that they're not actually extinct?

Re:A very unusual toad

[tompaulco]

They became nonviable because we destroyed their habitat. It seems strange that you consider undoing damage we have caused as somehow playing God
All errors are cumulative, all interference is absolute value. Two wrongs don't make a right, although three lefts do.

Re:A very unusual toad

[Cajun Hell]

If a species has gone extinct in the wild should humans reintroduce them?

Because they want to.

who the heck are we to play God

People who want things.

What kind of sick fuck doesn't play god every day? Go back to your cave (literally!) and eat your wild grass strains, assuming you can find any.

Re:A very unusual toad

[Rockoon]

A beaver that builds a dam has no hope of knowing the ecological impacts of his actions.

First, what makes you think that beavers dont understand the ecological impacts of their actions?
Second, what makes you think that we understand the ecological impacts of our actions?

Your argument with regards to habitat modification seems to suggest that you believe humans are equal to other animals in terms of morality as well.

I merely believe that we evolved to make decisions that benefit ourselves, our families, and our tribe (nationalism is just another name for tribalism.) That sometimes the order of importance of these things is different than given is also a matter of evolution at its core. I also observe that many people conflate conservation with preservation, to the detriment of both philosophies.

Re:A very unusual toad

[hairyfeet]

That is because they subscribe to the church of Supply Side Jesus and every time you hurt the stock numbers or pay capital gains you make Supply Side Jesus cry.

So if Supply Side Jesus wanted that frog saved then dammit he'd have made them profitable to raise! I mean do you hear about cows, chickens, or minks going extinct? Of course not because they were blessed by Supply Side Jesus with the miraculous gift of exploit-ability!

Re:A very unusual toad

[hesiod]

I don't think you can argue that building dams is a requirement of survival. It is disconnected from evolution.

It is certainly not disconnected from evolution: they started doing for some reason, and continued to do it as they evolved. Maybe at some point it WAS a matter of survival, such as lowering down-stream water levels so larger water predators couldn't swim up-stream to get at them.

Re:A very unusual toad

[craigminah]

Funny how angry people's posts on /. often are. I don't like in a cave, don't eat grass, and don't give a crap about toads but I think it's our hubris that compels humans to try to do what they perceive as good even though it's a disservice to those toads.

Re:A very unusual toad

[Rockoon]

Your point seems to be that beavers may be our intellectual equals, or even perhaps our superiors.

Really? The point couldn't possibly be that we don't know what our impact is, and we also don't know what beavers do or don't know? You don't have to read anything into it. The thing stated is precisely what is meant.

Saying exactly what you mean is how some people actually choose what to say.

Speaking of which, nobody has any idea what being "intellectual equals" actually means, but there you are trying to argue with it, as if you know that this particular property that we cant even begin to measure is some how a requirement of the hypothesis that frogs understand their ecological impact. Do you see the problem? You really don't know what you are talking about, even though you may like to think that you do.

Hydroelectric, anyone?

[DNS-and-BIND]

This is what happens when dams are built. It doesn't matter if it's meant to prevent flooding or generate electricity. Either way, animals are genocided and humans benefit. Maybe we could use less electricity so we don't need so many damn dams.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You go ahead and use less electricity. I suggest starting with turning off your computer. You're not using it for anything worthwhile anyway.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Nyder]

This is what happens when dams are built. It doesn't matter if it's meant to prevent flooding or generate electricity. Either way, animals are genocided and humans benefit. Maybe we could use less electricity so we don't need so many damn dams.

Ya, someone should kill all beavers.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what do you propose?
Fossil fuels, which destroy much much more through extraction and use? Or perhaps nuclear fuels? They need to get mined too you know, not to mention the wastes produced by those power plants and I don't mean just the remains of the fuel after it's been expended.

Solar power? you need to cover very large areas with panels. I have to wonder though, would that affect the clime in any way, since there's a lot of light/energy redirected back in the sky instead of heating the ground?

Wind power? lots of windmills that kill off anything that flies, and probably generate enough noise that predators easily catch whatever they want.

etc etc etc

The moment humans set out to domesticate animals and raise crops, everything we've done ever since was terraforming. Population will keep growing, energy and food demand will also. Unless you plan to wipe out the human species, then it's best if you realize soon, extinct species will remain in museums or formadelhide jars.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Culture20]

humans benefit

You don't have to convince me twice. I'm building a dam in my backyard stream tomorrow!

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[dywolf]

Microecosystems are very fragile yes. But they are also not typically that common. that is micro-ecological systems where a species is severely restricted one waterfall, one pool (Devils Hole Pupfish), etc. Such critters are essentially relics, that got super attached to one thing, and that one thing is now cutoff. In essence, they overadapted in the wrong direction, and are thus naturally headed to extinction even if we didn't build the dam (unless the system somehow reverses itself and their small little niche grows once more).

It's like if a three legged cat in a world of dogs managed to still exist by only living on top of a high butte above the plain...and then an earthquake leveled the butte and now the cats are on the same level as the dogs, and thus now become dogchow.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[dywolf]

actually i shouldnt say they arent that common. rather they arent that commonly identified, because the "resolution" so to speak required to identify them is typically so small. the bigger a critters range, the easier it is to identify its presence. though on the other hand, frequently these critters also arent distinct species but subspecies. in this case, it was a distinct species, and they wre numerous (TFA says ~17k individuals in a tiny area) prior to the dam. The artical also mentions disease as a factor, and that is als important to note. such microhabitat critters being so specialized to their small locations are extremely vulnerable to -any- outside influence or change such as disease. it would be unusual to see a critter like that reverse course and adapt back out of its specialized niche and not go extinct.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

"Microecosystems are very fragile yes. But they are also not typically that common."

This is completely false. In the Cactaceae and Orchidaceae plant families alone there are literally hundreds of such examples I can think of. That's before you start looking at every other plant and animal family going.

You also can't simply dismiss them as unimportant, some of these small colony species and plants can be essential to the migratory patterns of other animals who have a much wider effect. Let's look at a real life example, if a species, such as Arrojadoa marylanae, a type of cactus growing in a single mineral rich hill habitat gets whiped out by planned mining of it's habitat then a hummingbird species dependent on it for it's annual migration will no longer have this resource for that migration and will hence likely see decimation of it's population. Decimation of it's population means that potentially hundreds of other plant species dependent on it for pollination along it's migratory path will no longer have a pollinator and continue to suffer, and those animal species which hunt it and it's eggs will also see a loss of a major food source.

You can't also simply assume that such species are headed towards extinction regardless, how do you know this? are you able to calculate a future of such species in the event that humans don't intervene? If so I'm sure many people would love to hear how you're able to understand the eventual outcome of such chaotic systems with such an unfathomable amount of parameters in. How do you know that instead of extinction that these species wont actually evolve to expand? how do you know that there isn't some regular but unknown event which happens on a long time scale we don't know about during which these animals thrive such that they're not just at a temporary low? how do you know these animals have zero impact on the survival of other species?

Most species are "super attached" to one thing or another, humans for example are far more dependent on things like water, than other species are - we can't last anywhere near as long without it as others and similarly we could be quite prone to being whiped out due to a change in the chemical constituency of our atmosphere where many other species would make it through. Neither of these things though is an argument that we should just do what we want even if it means making humanity extinct, because well, we shouldn't have become so super attached to things like water should we?

The point is that the loss of even the most specialised species in the world can potentially have a knock on effect on other species creating a cascading effect to the point it effects species we do actually give a shit about.

I'm not some kind of hardcore environmentalist that thinks we should try our hardest to preserve every living thing to the point we can, but an excuse that amounts to "well it doesn't matter if we whipe it out, it's a meaningless species and was going to die anyway" is so utterly ignorant that it doesn't belong on a site like Slashdot.

Just about every single thing you do when fucking around with nature to the degree of causing species extinction, no matter how irrelevant you think the species is is going to have some kind of negative effect. It's not just the simple loss of 17,000 toads, it's the loss of 17,000 toads, plus 10,000 animals that feed on them, plus the 5,000 that feed on them, and so on, coupled with the loss of any plants/species that were dependent on any effects on the environment of the toads which will often result in the loss of species which grow to much higher numbers (insects, fungus, bacteria) - the point being your 17,000 toads will almost always rapidly extend to be millions of lost living things both plants and animals.

They call it the web of life for a reason, in nature things never really happen in isolation with no impact anywhere else. You can never assume that the loss of one species is the loss of that species and nothing more, because that's never really the case.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[GodfatherofSoul]

You left out one overwhelming benefit. If your rafting party is ever raped by crazed , inbred rednecks, you can use a damn lake to cover up the evidence.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[TubeSteak]

Your neighbors upstream of you will likely be displeased at the flooding.
That's why people spend endless money on pools instead.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[khallow]

You can't also simply assume that such species are headed towards extinction regardless, how do you know this?

Let's use reason for starters.

First, there's no niche that will remain forever unchanging. So an organism that has evolved for that particular niche has to have an exit or it'll eventually go extinct. Either it moves on to some other environment, or it exchanges genes with compatible organisms in another environment.

And from looking through a history of invasive species onto Pacific islands, it appears that species which have evolved to compete in a big environment (such as rats in the wilds and towns of Europe), tend to eliminate species which had evolved to the niche environments of the islands.

Conversely, I see no evidence of species which evolved to a niche, expanding unless there is absolutely no competition (such as species which first colonized those Pacific Islands).

So yes, it sure looks to me like heavy specialization in a niche is some of a death sentence.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

I don't think you get how evolution works. It doesn't work rapidly, it works over an extended period of time.

These toads were fitted to the environment they were in, and no species can change to destruction of their environment overnight.

If humanity hadn't caused such rapid disruption, the changes to their environment that would force evolution to take hold would happen over a much longer time period.

I can think of many examples, but let's say rainfall increased in this area leading to greater bodies of water. This would mean the toads who became better at swimming would likely become more succesful overtime, and if there are connected rivers where this particular habitat is then that may mean they can then swim strongly enough to spread their habitat range, and hence grow their population by water. Similarly, if humidity changed as a gradual process due to say, decreased rainfall over time, then they wouldn't need these misters to stay alive, they would adapt to it slowly.

Invasive species being succesful is rarely about said species being able to cope more generally, but more about the fact that there is no natural predator catered to some unique feature they have in that ecosystem to keep their populations down. Similarly they are in an environment where disease that would also effect their populations and that would've co-evolved with them to minimise population growth hasn't also been brought across.

You're trying to use reason, but you're doing so with a very weak understand of the sort of time scales evolution works on. You're mistakenly assuming that because a creature can't cope with a rapid change (i.e. complete habitat destruction over a few weeks) that it wouldn't have coped with an inevitable slower change, that may possibly occur on the order of even hundreds of thousands of years.

This is exactly why there are so many extinctions related to climate change - not because climate change hasn't happened before, not because animals don't have the capacity to adapt and evolve to cope with climate change on more natural time scales, but because of the rate of change right now is so fast it's unseen and too fast for evolutionary principles to be able to allow species to adapt.

Before you can understand why the original post I was responding to is bullshit you need a better understanding of evolution, specifically:

1) Evolution does not happen in isolation but as an adaptation to slowly changing environments

2) Evolutionary effects naturally occur over much larger timescales than the man made extinction events allow

3) Evolution is a battle between predator and prey, if you take a predator to a new environment where it's co-evolved natural limitations do not exist then it will run rampant regardless of the fitness of the natural species there

4) You say you see no evidence of niche species expanding, and yet that is by definition what must always happen. When humans lost the ability to swing through trees like monkeys and instead became planeswalkers they were inherently a niche at first relative to the much more widely spread monkey populations. A species is always initially a niche as it makes the changes to become a new species, but some niches allow for greater eventual success than others.

What we can't say, given that the habitat of these toads was destroyed in a short time period, not a time period of evolutionary scales, is whether the eventual natural pressures of the environment would've been enough to allow them to spread or not. More than anything it is about how the environment changes that determines success as much as it is how the species evolves but no species can survive a man-made style change. If man fucked up some kind of experiment and it drastically altered the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere for example over the period of mere weeks, we ourselves would not manage to survive but it has nothing to do with us being evolved into a niche and everything to do with a change to the habitat we've evolved to happening far too quickly for us to cope with the change.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[khallow]

I don't think you get how evolution works. It doesn't work rapidly, it works over an extended period of time.

These toads were fitted to the environment they were in, and no species can change to destruction of their environment overnight.

But for some organisms, destruction of their environment would require the radical changing say of most of Europe and global human civilization and others it would require a modest alteration of a waterfall.

4) You say you see no evidence of niche species expanding, and yet that is by definition what must always happen.

Not by definition.

If man fucked up some kind of experiment and it drastically altered the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere for example over the period of mere weeks, we ourselves would not manage to survive

I disagree. We have a remarkable ability to adapt even over very short time periods. For example, nuclear subs would remain habitable for years. That would be enough time to reestablish a human presence on the surface of Earth. And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

"But for some organisms, destruction of their environment would require the radical changing say of most of Europe and global human civilization and others it would require a modest alteration of a waterfall."

Right, but what's your point? Keep in mind we've whiped out species who spread right across land masses bigger than Europe (e.g. North America). All extinctions still have an effect on the web of life though. A massive asteroid hit could cause just as much damage to humanity in less time than a damn building project could to these toads but just because a massive asteroid hit is less likely doesn't make this more acceptable to whipe them out or mean they were anymore likely to die out naturally than we are. They're also smaller than us and require less resources.

"Not by definition."

Yes it is, new niche features are precisely what taxonomy has always used to define speciation, and that hasn't changed with DNA based taxonomy. When a species enters a new niche that is the line where we define it as a distinct species, or subspecies.

"I disagree. We have a remarkable ability to adapt even over very short time periods. For example, nuclear subs would remain habitable for years. That would be enough time to reestablish a human presence on the surface of Earth."

But this misses another important point, you need a sizeable population to have a sustainable gene pool. The crew of a sub would simply be far too few to sustain a population with a healthy gene pool and by that point you've lost the facilities and medical expertise to diagnose and deal with things like cancer. If 1 in 10 women are prone to breast cancer, you've already lost 10% of your females when it happens and where are you going to find qualified personnel and facilities that are working (no power anymore remember) for chemotherapy? You could butcher them, but what if they get an infection and die anyway? Humanity is much more prone to illness and disease than it ever was because we stopped letting natural selection select such things out. Factor in all the other problems people can suffer and your population is going to dwindle.

"And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need."

In the space of a few weeks when half the world is in panic? Not likely, we can't even deal with CO2 emissions when the world isn't in panic and we have many countries and many billions being spent on it and within a timeframe of decades. Do you think people are going to turn up to run power stations and so forth if this sort of scenario were to come about? You might be able to save pockets of disease prone humans but statistically you may end up with someone who has something like AIDs, or some STD that can lead to infertility - have fun when that breaks out. Again, it's not going to be genetically spread enough for a healthy population.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[khallow]

Right, but what's your point?

Well, two points come to mind. First, that extinction of very specialized species in small niches just isn't that big of a deal. And it's going to happen anyway. Second, it really does matter how difficult it is for an extinction to occur. Here, we have a species that will go extinct in the wild again, if their misting system breaks down. Consider that against humanity which could only go extinct under some extreme circumstances, such as a massive asteroid (probably have to be considerably worse than whatever caused the Permian extinction), a cunning genetically modified disease, or an aggressive and superior life form or machine.

"And one can always come up with biological, mechanical, or electrical means to make up the balance of oxygen need."

In the space of a few weeks when half the world is in panic?

Yes. There's a difference between being in a panic half a world away and being in a panic in the middle of your ark of survival. Just don't build the future of humanity in the middle of a riot zone. It's surprising what you can accomplish when you don't do that. Or you can hang out in nuclear subs for those few weeks until everyone has died and then get to work.

You might be able to save pockets of disease prone humans but statistically you may end up with someone who has something like AIDs, or some STD that can lead to infertility - have fun when that breaks out.

And how are these diseases going to survive? They need hosts, and the hosts just died. Plus disease resistance quickly returns once lethal diseases do.

we can't even deal with CO2 emissions when the world isn't in panic and we have many countries and many billions being spent on it and within a timeframe of decades.

And almost no reason to bother either. I see you forget that there are bigger problems for humanity than slight global warming. Consider why that dam, which has caused so much trouble for these frogs, was built in the first place.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

"Well, two points come to mind. First, that extinction of very specialized species in small niches just isn't that big of a deal. And it's going to happen anyway."

Right, we've been over this, and it seems you like the other guy don't understand the way evolution works, but also seem to believe you have an ability no one else on earth has yet managed - the ability to determine the outcome of extremely complex chaotic systems.

Let's be honest, you don't actually have that ability, so quit saying things that are simply unknowable to you.

"Second, it really does matter how difficult it is for an extinction to occur."

Yes it does, it's fundamentally important because the longer it takes for an extinction event to occur the longer there is for habitat to change putting pressure on a species to also change via natural selection and hence opening the door for great population growth.

"Consider that against humanity which could only go extinct under some extreme circumstances, such as a massive asteroid (probably have to be considerably worse than whatever caused the Permian extinction), a cunning genetically modified disease, or an aggressive and superior life form or machine."

This just shows that you still don't get it. You seem to think that because there is a different scale in the change that that somehow matters - it doesn't, the point is that a dam being built in these creatures habitat is equivalent to an extinction level event happening against humanity.

"And how are these diseases going to survive? They need hosts, and the hosts just died. Plus disease resistance quickly returns once lethal diseases do."

Things treachorous to humans like diseases, viruses and so forth can sit dormant for a long time. Anthrax is one obvious well known example. You assume they need a human host, that's false, how do you think Malaria most commonly spreads? Diseases resistance does quickly return you're right, the problem is you're talking about a population too small to cope with that, and that's kind of the point.

I don't think there's much point taking this any further as you clearly don't have a decent grasp of the way both evolution, disease spread and resistance work. You seem to have a very simplified grade-school view of them but things aren't this simple in reality and further education on the subject will teach you much more. If you don't understand why you need a decent population to provide decent genetic diversity to protect against illness and so forth, and if you don't understand why the extinction of a species has an impact that reaches far beyond the mere death of that species then you really simply do not have the pre-requisite knowledge to have this discussion.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[khallow]

Right, we've been over this, and it seems you like the other guy don't understand the way evolution works, but also seem to believe you have an ability no one else on earth has yet managed - the ability to determine the outcome of extremely complex chaotic systems.

Frogs depending on survival by actively generated mist? Doesn't sound complex to me. They'll die out again when the mist goes away. Show the model is wrong before continuing to use up my time.

And the whole blather about "complex systems" is pure reductionism. It's a "complex system" so your argument must be right.

Things treachorous to humans like diseases, viruses and so forth can sit dormant for a long time. Anthrax is one obvious well known example. You assume they need a human host, that's false, how do you think Malaria most commonly spreads? Diseases resistance does quickly return you're right, the problem is you're talking about a population too small to cope with that, and that's kind of the point.

They need a host. Any atmospheric oxygen imbalance that kills off humans globally without mechanical assistance, is going to wipe out the non-human hosts. All it takes is a little thinking.

And once humans come into contact with diseases again, they'll build up immunity again just as they did over the past few thousand years.

I don't think there's much point taking this any further as you clearly don't have a decent grasp of the way both evolution, disease spread and resistance work.

You are one to talk. I tire of the ignorant lecturing me on subjects I'm familiar with.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

"Frogs depending on survival by actively generated mist? Doesn't sound complex to me. They'll die out again when the mist goes away. Show the model is wrong before continuing to use up my time."

Because you've got absolutely no evidence that there was any reason the mist would magically just go away. The mist will have been generated by the features of the environment, a waterfall or whatever. What makes you think that without mans intervention and destruction of the habitat that a waterfall was going to magically ping out of existence in the near future?

"And the whole blather about "complex systems" is pure reductionism. It's a "complex system" so your argument must be right."

Or in other words, you know little about complex systems so you're going to remove all talk of them from the equation and discuss the topic at your grade school level of knowledge. Right.

"They need a host. Any atmospheric oxygen imbalance that kills off humans globally without mechanical assistance, is going to wipe out the non-human hosts."

Well that's blatantly not true - there are many species that can survive in much tougher conditions than we can, especially bacteria, again, the bacteria behind anthrax being one of the most potent examples we know of. I'm amazed you feel the need to try and reduce the discussion to such an absurd level by outright denying the existence of some pretty well documented things.

"And once humans come into contact with diseases again, they'll build up immunity again just as they did over the past few thousand years."

You still clearly show know knowledge of how disease resistance works. There is much that can kill us without the availability of modern medicine and without modern medicine to artifically protect us from these illnesses then we end up like every other creature, where the only way to build up resistance is to have a large enough population that at least one of those has the genetic variability needed to survive it so he/she can breed it into their future children. The problem is, that once again, we're not talking about a healthy enough sized gene pool. You still clearly do not get even first year degree level biology in this respect.

"You are one to talk. I tire of the ignorant lecturing me on subjects I'm familiar with."

So you're familiar with them and yet you talk utter nonsense and ignore established scientific fact on these issues? So which is it? you're not actually familiar with them but simply can't accept being wrong (even though you are) or you are familiar with them but still pretend the opposite, again, because you can't accept being wrong?

Either way it doesn't bode well for your ability to come across as an informed human being when you put ego above well established fact.

Honestly, if it's the 3rd possible reason, that I, and many decades of scientific research are wrong, then I'd love to see your published work demonstrating how you can repopulate humanity with only a tiny handful of people without worry about the long term effects and risks of inbreeding that disprove all prior research on the topic. I'd also love to see your papers disproving the existence of the web of life, that show that species always exist in isolation. I'd even love to see your paper on how large established waterfalls are known to magically vanish from existence in short order.

Oh what's that? You've done none of this? That's okay, I wont ask you to apologise, I can see you're far too proud a person to ever accept that you're in over your head on a certain topic but feel the need to pretend you know more than you do, whilst spouting grade school level simplifications that simply show that you don't in fact know what you're on about. Have fun being ignorant though, you obviously enjoy it.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[khallow]

Because you've got absolutely no evidence that there was any reason the mist would magically just go away.

Sure, I do. The mist is generated by man-made equipment not a natural waterfall. Everything made by man eventually fails. And stuff that requires considerable active maintenance from humans? That'll fail even faster.

The mist will have been generated by the features of the environment, a waterfall or whatever. What makes you think that without mans intervention and destruction of the habitat that a waterfall was going to magically ping out of existence in the near future?

Human interference is just as natural as a waterfall drying up. And yes, sooner or later that waterfall would have "pinged out of existence" or some other accident come along and wipe those frogs out. What makes preservation of this species useful? You seem to indicate that it'll save a few kilograms of other organisms (those millions of organisms). That's not much gain for the effort.

Or in other words, you know little about complex systems so you're going to remove all talk of them from the equation and discuss the topic at your grade school level of knowledge. Right.

You have yet to show "complex systems" have any relevance to the frog problem. It's just an excuse to you for not thinking about the problem. We can't "know" because the system is incredibly complex or whatever (be sure to wiggle your fingers mysteriously as you say this). As I said earlier, that's reductionist tripe.

"They need a host. Any atmospheric oxygen imbalance that kills off humans globally without mechanical assistance, is going to wipe out the non-human hosts."

Well that's blatantly not true - there are many species that can survive in much tougher conditions than we can, especially bacteria, again, the bacteria behind anthrax being one of the most potent examples we know of. I'm amazed you feel the need to try and reduce the discussion to such an absurd level by outright denying the existence of some pretty well documented things.

No, you're wrong here as well. Anthrax spores can survive for a while outside of a host, decades even. But if it's ever going to pass on its genes, it's going to have to infect a host before the spore dies. And that's the problem. When is that anthrax going to find a host? The animals it infects all died off, except for the few living with people. And the people wouldn't have been thoughtful enough to bring some anthrax spores with them.

If anthrax really was that hardy, then we'd never have gotten rid of it in the developed world. Or the nastier stuff like hoof and mouth disease. Keep in mind that current agriculture animals are inbred to an incredible degree.

"And once humans come into contact with diseases again, they'll build up immunity again just as they did over the past few thousand years."

You still clearly show know knowledge of how disease resistance works. There is much that can kill us without the availability of modern medicine and without modern medicine to artifically protect us from these illnesses then we end up like every other creature, where the only way to build up resistance is to have a large enough population that at least one of those has the genetic variability needed to survive it so he/she can breed it into their future children. The problem is, that once again, we're not talking about a healthy enough sized gene pool. You still clearly do not get even first year degree level biology in this respect.

It'd be at least several thousand people (there are a lot of nuclear subs, you know). We already know, from observation of mitochondrial DNA, that we've probably passed through a similar bottleneck back 70-80k years ago, and yet recovered to gain our current level of disease resistance (most diseases which showed up in the last 3,000 years).

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Xest]

"Sure, I do. The mist is generated by man-made equipment not a natural waterfall. Everything made by man eventually fails. And stuff that requires considerable active maintenance from humans? That'll fail even faster."

WTF? You've just reached the point now where you've stopped making any sense at all. The made made mist came along after the species had already been whiped out as a replacement for the natural mist that kept them alive before tey were whiped out. At least it's clear now why you have the view you do - you've misunderstood the whole underlying situation here.

"Human interference is just as natural as a waterfall drying up. And yes, sooner or later that waterfall would have "pinged out of existence" or some other accident come along and wipe those frogs out."

Right, but that's the same for every living species on the planet, at some point something will come along and whipe it out. But you've still failed to demonstrate how this somehow translates into the idea that it's acceptable for humans to whipe out this species, any more than it is any other, or none at all.

"You seem to indicate that it'll save a few kilograms of other organisms (those millions of organisms). That's not much gain for the effort."

Sure, by itself, but we're doing this on a fairly wide scale, we whipe out say 5 species, and think, no big deal, but when that has a knock on effect on many other species taking the toll to a much higher number, because everything in nature is interlinked and species loss always has an impact on other species then it becomes a problem, and that's the key, you don't understand that you can't just whipe out a species in isolation, the world does not work like that, no ifs, no buts.

"If anthrax really was that hardy, then we'd never have gotten rid of it in the developed world."

Whilst anthrax was but one obvious example (out of millions of possible examples) of a long lived disease that can cause significant harm to returning humans and hence not exactly something worth getting into much of a debate about, I'd point out that the duration of anthrax can indeed be decades as you state, the problem is, more decades than humanity can survive. Also, we haven't gotten rid of it in the developed world, what on earth makes you think we have? Just this year the UK has had 5 cases in drug users alone. There are commonly cases of people who have dealt with for example, leather also, which is prone to transporting it. But between anthrax, other diseases, and the severe inbreeding a small population would have the point is that you can't repopulate succesfully from such a small population.

"It'd be at least several thousand people (there are a lot of nuclear subs, you know)."

Right and how do they find each other? where do they meet?

"Well, you are wrong in numerous places. So yes, I'll go with the third possible reason. Just because there is research on evolution, "the web of life" and other such subjects, doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about."

You're going with the 3rd reason, seriously? That the consensus of just about every professional biologist, taxonomist, and mathematician with experience in modelling living systems that is living or has lived is wrong and you're right?

No wonder with that level of arrogance you can't simply accept being wrong, you've so far passed any ability to be humble and accept that when you are out of your depth the trick is to stop digging that there's no hope for you to ever escape your pit of ignorance.

Is the environment really wild....

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have to create an "artificial" misting system?

Just sayin....

Re:Is the environment really wild....

[tompaulco]

If they have to create an "artificial" misting system?
When humans go away, the toads will die, so I would say that still counts as "in captivity". If they want them to survive in the wild, they should find another similar environment and release them there. Of course, transporting species has historically led to bad consequences, so maybe it is best that we let nature take its course and let the species die out or adapt to its new dry surroundings (or move upstream).

Genebank

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Nature has already made extinct about a million times more species than mankind ever has, or ever will, long before we made an appearance. In fact nature made a damn good effort at finishing us off a couple of times. The difference is we can think about the consequences.

What we need is a major international effort to preserve the genetic material of as many endangered species as possible, of all sorts, in a genetic bank. When technology advances far enough both in genetics and energy production we can then recreate these species if possible. It wouldn't be a reason to act irresponsibly but maybe its the best that can be done at the moment.

Re:Genebank

[Rockoon]

If you take the humans-are-evil-because-they-wipe-out-species, then wouldn't re-introducing extinct species also be sort of irresponsible under the same philosophy?

If we could bring back pterodactyls today, would it really be wise? It isnt hard to imagine the devastation to many species that this would cause. Perhaps it is actually immoral to preserve the possibility of that sort of thing happening. Can we trust future humans to only bring back these species when its a good idea to do so? Maybe we shouldn't give them the chance to make horribly bad decisions.

Re:Genebank

[Rogerborg]

Yes, let's re-create wave after wave of Chinese Needle Snakes. Did you remember to store the DNA of that special type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat?

Species go extinct because they're worthless and weak. We are not the planet's keeper.

Re:Genebank

[N!k0N]

And then some dumbass scientist decides "hey, we can bring back dinosaurs" ...
not like _THAT_ isn't a bad idea.

Extinct?

[Murdoch5]

If the Zoo has a captive group of these toads then there not extinct, Exctinction:

extinction is the end of an organism or of a group of organisms (taxon), normally a species.

Indangered yes, but not extinct.

Extinct again

[ByteSlicer]

I hope they keep a few captive, because otherwise they will go extinct again the first time that artificial mist breaks down (things tend to break in time, especially in the tropics).

Actually, a bit of googling told me this happened before in 2003.

now we need some dino dna

[Joe_Dragon]

So they can come back and be put in a zoo

Re:now we need some dino dna

[Spaseboy]

Unfortunately it has been discovered that DNA has a half-life...and it's not really that long.

In the wild?

[jvkjvk]

When environments are artificially sustained, we no longer call them "wild".

Unless this is some twist on humans being considered as just part of nature.

But that kind of removes the utility of the word, no?

At best this is an unbounded zoo in that without maintenance by the zoo keepers the frogs would just die off. Now if they had recreated a sustainable environment and left the frogs there (as opposed to having to continue to induce an environment) then one might be able to say they had been reintroduced 'in the wild'.

Animals were given into mankind's hands

[tepples]

who the heck are we to play God

I'll assume for a moment that by God you mean the Judeo-Christian God: God warned Noah of a worldwide natural disaster to come in A.M. 1656 and gave him plans and several decades to build a 3-story barge to carry specimens of each kind of animal safely through this disaster. After the barge landed, God told Noah who was in charge of the animals: "Into your hand they are now given." (Genesis 9:2) So becoming good stewards of wildlife by no means contravenes what God expects of His followers.

Re:Animals were given into mankind's hands

[geekoid]

Yes, lets use the ridiculous impossible example of Noah. And lets no forget that God made that disaster and killed million of innocent children.
Well, not really becasue it didn't happen.

Re:Animals were given into mankind's hands

[dywolf]

if you're gonna belittle something, at least know what you're talking about.

nowhere in the story does it say he drowned innocent children.

in fact, the story makes it quite plain that the flood was punishment for wickedness and that only noah and his family were to be spared. the statement implicit in that is that everyone else was found wanting, ie, wicked.

Why put them back there?

[bhartman34]

I understand the desire to re-establish the species in the wild, but why put them back there? There must be other environments where they would get the misting naturally. Right?

Re:Why put them back there?

[bhartman34]

And how does that prevent the toad from interfering with other species?

If that's the concern, they shouldn't introduce the toad back. What about the other species that were doing just fine when the toads were removed and/or better off without the toads?

It's simply not possible for us to "help" one species without impacting another. Attempts like this, unless they're done in the spirit of "just because we can" (which would at least have scientific value, to see if it can be done) are silly, at best, and possibly reckless.

Humans impact our environment, just like any other species. We should stop trying to undo what impact we have, because our attempts are probably only going to make things worse. Unlike natural selection, which works reliably, we have no idea WTF we're doing.

Re:Why reintroduce it there?

[bhartman34]

I didn't see this post before I posted mine. I'd seriously love an answer to this question, though.

Seriously?

[AndyKron]

Seriously? Artificial misting systems for a toad? How many children died of hunger last year, 10 million?

Re:Seriously?

[GodfatherofSoul]

If this breeding program works, we can feed them the toads.

Re:Seriously?

[cellocgw]

Seriously? Artificial misting systems for a toad? How many children died of hunger last year, 10 million?

  If this breeding program works, we can feed them the toads.

You left out "to." Should read "...we can feed them *to* the toads." Much better outcome all around.

PS OK I give up: how the heck do I close a "quote" tag?" less-than,backslash,quote fails.

Re:Seriously?

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is how I quote:

<quote>Paste quoted text here</quote>

Then continue my message...

God doesn't destroy righteous with wicked

[tepples]

And lets no forget that God made that disaster and killed million of innocent children.

God waited for all the other righteous people to have passed away before sending the flood. It occurred very soon after Noah's grandfather Methuselah and father Lamech had already died due to other causes. (Genesis 5:25-31) It's not in God's nature to destroy righteous people along with the wicked. --Genesis 18:22-33.

Well, not really becasue it didn't happen.

Han didn't really shoot first, Darth Vader wasn't really Luke's father, Pinocchio wasn't brought to life by the Blue Fairy, and women with sirenomelia can't really sing underwater. Those events happened in Disney movies. But craigminah introduced a character from The Bible, so I'll continue to refer to The Bible.

ignore

[Rogue Pat]

posting to undo moderation

What does this have to do with sheep?

[anonymous_wombat]

Just asking.