 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by W. Khan on November 11, 1998 at 20:26:47:
In Reply to: Re: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines posted by Dave Beamer on November 10, 1998 at 21:19:58:
: How can a population once described as a sympatric subspecies have it's own evoltionary fate when there is gene flow between it and other populations. If kingsnakes in CA do go extinct this affects the kingsnakes on the east coast as the total range of the species is greatly reduced. In addition herpetoculture can not save kingsnakes. This is like saying farmers have saved cows, a cow can hardly be celebrated as preservation. The same goes for dogs, cats, goldfish ect. all of these have not been subjected to natural selection and therefore have not contributed to preserving the species in even a small way. I would suggest that if kingsnake populations in CA where in danger of extinction that kingsnakes in CA be protected. They obviously wouldn't require federal protection as they are secure over many thousands of square miles otherwise. I fail to see how it is as important know how to reproduce subocs in captivity, I do not claim that nothing useful can be learned from captive herps but reproduction under captive conditions is not very informative as to how they reproduce in the wild. Hobbyiest can definately make important contributions and they have already done so. I encourage them to keep up the good work but I can not support their work if it damages populations.
: Dave Beamer
Dave, I feel that your concerns deserve to be addressed, as you claim to have nothing but the animals' best interests in mind when you post such comments, and I feel that is an honorable intention. My concern is that, for whatever reason, you are not seeing the big picture, and, therefore, are in danger of doing more harm than good. The majority of herpetoculturists would likely agree with you that preservation of wild populations is a very high priority, and most would agree to measures aimed at accomplishing this goal. John Hollister drafted those preliminary guidelines in good faith, in effect, extending an invitation to work together in a constructive manner, and thereby providing evidence of our good intentions. However, a major objective of herpetoculturists is to be as sure as possible that any measures taken reflect consideration of all interested parties, and consideration of all relevant data. You present yourself as a scientist, well-versed in biological theory, so you should have no trouble realizing the importance of basing wildlife management-legislation on data. You repeatedly say in your posts that herpetoculture is damaging wild populations. I repeat my request to you for data supporting this claim. You can repeat your mantra until you are blue in the face, but there is no way I can continue to take you seriously until you produce references to support your opinions. You, of all people, should be able to understand this. Is this clear to you? I say again, please provide me with the "scarce" data concerning herpetoculture's relationship to wild populations, as you promised.
Now, I'll take a minute to address some of your comments in your last reply to me. There is practically nothing in evolutionary theory or proposed speciation mechanisms that is not questionable at some level. This forum is not the place for such debates so I must apologize to J. Barringer and other forum participants for continuing to discuss these somewhat irrelevant issues with you here, but I think it is warranted. First of all, I disagree with your hard stance against the possibility of sympatric speciation. If you look hard enough, you will find examples in the scientific literature. Granted, most of these instances involve plants and herbivorous insects, but vertebrate examples do exist. One case in point is the Gray Treefrog. As you may know, the two species (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. versicolor) are sympatric and, by all indications, are monophyletic, having evolved sympatrically through quantum speciation (diploidy to tetraploidy, in this instance). Another interesting example is given by the work of KS Ulrich, et al., 1994. They provide evidence for sympatric speciation in African cichlids inhabiting remote crater lakes. In brief, over-simplified summary, mt-DNA sequence analysis indicates that these lakes contain species of cichlids that are monophyletic, and more closely related to each other than with nearby cichlid populations that could have served as founder stock. I included the reference below so you may read the paper at your convenience.
What you say about my hypothetical getulus example is also problematic. You say your solution would be to restrict possession or collection of "kingsnakes" in California only because it would be threatened only in that state, and therefore not requiring federal management. This would mean possession of the eastern chain kingsnake, speckled kingsnake, or any ssp. of L. getulus would be illegal in California. In your scenario, a state-level department of natural resources would be in the position of managing animals that do not occur within their particular state's boundaries, and this is something that state D'sNR do not wish to do. It is also something that is not within their mandate. Furthermore, I don't believe you should confidently profess that all members of the getula complex are the same animal. Again, I ask that you provide supporting data when making such claims. How do you know that these animals have had uninterrupted gene flow throughout history? Are you familiar with Ensatina eschscholtzii complex, a well-known "ring species" (if not, I included a reference below)? Are you certain that the L. getula complex has not gone through similar contortions in the past? In fact, do you have any data at all that gives some D values within the getula complex? I would love to see some small values for genetic distance substantiating your opinion, as I find this sort of thing very interesting. I'll end my rambling about species and speciation here, as these lines of discussion are tangential. Please take this up with me via e-mail. I hope we can both learn something from further discussion of these topics.
I'm not exactly sure how to address your cow example because I find it so far off-base. It makes me suspect that some of your ideas are not in accordance with the mainstream views of other biologists, not to say that there is anything wrong with "being on the fringe". Good luck with that. At any rate, my only reply to the cow thing is "mooo" and "thank God for porterhouse steaks".
W. Khan
------------------------------
Ulrich, K.S., Tautz, T., & Paabo, S. 1994. Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids. Nature. Apr 14; 368(6472): 629-632.
Wake, D.B. 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. July; 94(15): 7761-7767.
