Successful Merger of Butterfly Species 85
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."
Corporations soon? (Score:1, Funny)
Makes me wonder (Score:3, Funny)
So I wonder which species we would need to interbreed with to produced civilized human beings as offspring?
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:3, Informative)
That all goes back to "nature vs nurture" arguments.
Re:Makes me wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] for more information.
Viable? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Viable? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Viable? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Viable? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Viable? (Score:1)
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
Re:Viable? (Score:2)
Re:Viable? (Score:2)
Remember the formula: horse + donkey = mule
See http://www.ruralheritage.com/mule_paddock/mule_com pare.htm [ruralheritage.com]
Unless you mean honky. But that's a different branch of science.
Re:Viable? (Score:2, Informative)
~ Anders
Re:Viable? (Score:3, Informative)
Why this is important ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:2)
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 specie
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:1)
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:2)
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 combin
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:2)
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,
Re:Why this is important ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time... (Score:3, Funny)
marketing potential (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess this means we are one step closer to such reality. this is so Dystopian.
Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:3, 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.
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:4, 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?
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2)
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 captur
One rethorical and one non-rethorical question (Score:2)
How do you distinguish evolution from adaptation, how YOU define each one?
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2)
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2)
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.
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2)
You've already been modded "Flamebait" :-)
Re:Start your stopwatches . . . . (Score:2)
On a positive note: (Score:1)
What is speciation ? (Score:1, Insightful)
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 sp
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:2)
Egotism has nothing to do with it. The reason species concepts are sloppy is because trying to give concrete names to ev
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:3, Insightful)
There
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:2)
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. Th
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:2)
Do you really not know? (Score:2)
Re:What is speciation ? (Score:1)
but will it eat ..... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:better not get bitten by one... (Score:2)
Chaos ensues. (Score:3, Funny)
The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
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 th
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
They changed the definition of species because (Score:2)
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 a
Re:They changed the definition of species because (Score:2)
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
Did you actually read what I wrote? (Score:2)
Re:They changed the definition of species because (Score:2)
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 tha
Physician, heal thy own ego... (Score:2)
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 im
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
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.
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
ring species [wikipedia.org]
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:3, Informative)
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 an
Re:The meaning of "species" (Score:2)
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 w
IANAIBMFI (Score:1)
Obligatory (Score:1)
Study funded by MS? (Score:3, Funny)
I'd be more impressed... (Score:1)
Intelligent merger! Yeah, right! (Score:2)
Not wanting to mate makes a different species? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawyers ... (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity (Score:1)
Symbiogenesis (Score:1)