endangered animals

[EvilKittie]

is it just me, or when mammals go extinct it is breaking news or when a frog or a reptile or a bird goes extinct its not realy known of (unless writhed hornbill is in charge of the news ^^)

 

[CiaranDUK]

It's because the critically endangered animals that people know of are generally mammals. Ask anyone on the street to name an endangered animal they will most likely ALL say a mammal species. Tiger and Giant Panda being the top two I reckon. So... when new research comes out on how endangered these animals are it will make headline news! But ask somebody to name an endangered amphibian or reptile, most people will not know how to answer that. It's all publicity!

 

[dragon(ele)nerd]

yeah last month there was a large news report on how much the tiger populations have dropped.

There was another time how a report said that the northern white rhino is most likely extinct in the wild, they then quickly metnioned that is it "ok" because the southern subspecies is doing wonderful.

 

[CGSwans]

yeah last month there was a large news report on how much the tiger populations have dropped.

There was another time how a report said that the northern white rhino is most likely extinct in the wild, they then quickly metnioned that is it "ok" because the southern subspecies is doing wonderful.

I might be hounded off Zoochat for saying this. But some taxa might not be worth attempting to save.

Genetic diversity is hugely important. Where possible, any clade at any taxonomic level from localised population to species level should be conserved. However, we are in the middle of the fifth great extinction event in the history of the earth. We need to triage and we need to direct resources where they can be best used.

Is it worth directing millions of dollars at northern white rhinos, when there is a very closely related, relatively secure fellow subspecies? Perhaps not, when you consider that black, indian, sumatran and especially javan rhinos are all critically endangered.

We *can* save all four species of panthera, for instance... but can we really justify the resources required to preserve seven subspecies of lion, six subspecies of tiger, nine subspecies of leopard and somewhere between three and nine subspecies of jaguar? I throw open the floor to zoochatters, but my inclination is to say 'no'.

 

[FSBlue]

In some ways, this is already being done. Isn't the Jaguar SSP managed at the species level with no regard for subspecies? As for something like the Northern White Rhino, I agree though, sometimes you simply have to cut your losses. I would see the Northern go extinct sooner and have those resources directed towards another Rhino species rather than preserving the species for another generation or two in a vain attempt at a comeback.

 

[taun]

I might be hounded off Zoochat for saying this. But some taxa might not be worth attempting to save.

Genetic diversity is hugely important. Where possible, any clade at any taxonomic level from localised population to species level should be conserved. However, we are in the middle of the fifth great extinction event in the history of the earth. We need to triage and we need to direct resources where they can be best used.

Is it worth directing millions of dollars at northern white rhinos, when there is a very closely related, relatively secure fellow subspecies? Perhaps not, when you consider that black, indian, sumatran and especially javan rhinos are all critically endangered.

We *can* save all four species of panthera, for instance... but can we really justify the resources required to preserve seven subspecies of lion, six subspecies of tiger, nine subspecies of leopard and somewhere between three and nine subspecies of jaguar? I throw open the floor to zoochatters, but my inclination is to say 'no'.

You have to be realistic with this things, so your spot on with your comments.

 

[dragon(ele)nerd]

I can definately see cgswans where your coming from, inbreeding, if we try to save a species by breeding it with relatives, we might just get a sense of failure from it.

China's largest freshwater turtle the Rafetus swinhoei only has 2 living specimens known to man. Both are kept in a zoo try to breed. They have produced two clutches in which were very large some 60 or so. Though none hatched. On the third attempt the zoo staff want to ensure the egg lining is very firm, because they feared the last two clutches lacked calcium. There was another female beforehand, though when they tried to mate her with the zoo's male, he killed her.
A person in the documentery stated "even if the species future looks very bleek you should always try every attempt to save them"

I do somewhat agree with that. But what is going to happen if when the turtles hatch, will brother and sister mate?

I'm awfully unsure where I stand on the topic.

 

[JerseyLotte]

A very intelligent and concise reply from CGSwans

China's largest freshwater turtle the Rafetus swinhoei only has 2 living specimens known to man. Both are kept in a zoo try to breed. They have produced two clutches in which were very large some 60 or so. Though none hatched. On the third attempt the zoo staff want to ensure the egg lining is very firm, because they feared the last two clutches lacked calcium. There was another female beforehand, though when they tried to mate her with the zoo's male, he killed her.
A person in the documentery stated "even if the species future looks very bleek you should always try every attempt to save them"

I do somewhat agree with that. But what is going to happen if when the turtles hatch, will brother and sister mate?

You have situations like the above, which really are utterly different to trying to save a large mammal species over a large area, possibly across borders and cultures.

A single pair of turtles already maintained in captivity, are infact a much more optimistic bet!
While they're island endemic bird examples, think of the Mauritius Kestrel - down to 4 individuals in 1974! The Mauritian Pink Pigeon - Down to 10 individuals in 1991.

In these situations, species will either experience inbreeding depression and come through the bottleneck to recover, or they will indeed fail and go extinct.

In the animal world individuals are "siblings" not Brother and Sister, there is no moral wrong in breeding sibling animals, but a potential ethical wrong where there is no control or arguable need to.
The manpower and funding needed to try and save a species using a pair of comparatively small animals in a captive situation is simply incomparable to the manpower and funding needed to try and cover the entire potential range of a large mammal in the wild.

By this I don't mean I think, screw all the big mammals let's save all the turtles because it's easier

 

[Jurek7]

Hi,

This is a bit superfical understanding of genetics.

Genetic diversity of a species is important, but in fact many animals manage fine without it - because they lost it during the recent near-extinction by human hunting (eg. przewalski horse, wisent, northern elephant seal etc) or apparently naturally lack it (european beaver, european badger). So there is no reason not to try saving a species because there is only a few individuals left.

I think the rarest animal saved is the Laysan Duck, which for some time had a population size 1. One female, which laid a clutch of eggs, it was destroyed by a predator, but laid another one, it was, miraculously still fertilized from the stored sperm of the dead male. From this clutch of eggs come all existing Laysan Ducks.

Brother-sister mating should be avoided in conservation breeding, but in many animals, in fact, brothers and sisters mate perfectly. In examples of the turtle and a duck, they have big egg clutches and big mortality that any genetic disorders caused by brother-sister mating would likely be quickly purged out from the population.

More dangerous for the species is that a population remains low for many generations. Then is the risk that harmful mutations will become extablished.

 

[Hix]

A species with large clutch/litter sizes and/or short reproductive cycle can maintain a high level of genetic diversity due to the expression of polymorphic alleles and the increased rate of mutation in the population. Remember, mutations can be beneficial as well as deleterious, and are essential for evolution.

So a single turtle that produces 60 eggs in a clutch (and possibly more than one clutch a year) is in a much better position for self-sustainability than a rhino that produces one calf every two years.



Hix

 

[condor]

Birds usually make it into the news because of the many bird interested people around. Small mammals like mice and bats, and most reptiles and amphibians don't. For many of them it is also because it is difficult to confirm if they really are extinct. Just look at genus Atelopus. Many of those haven't been seen for many years but are 'only' IUCN Critically Endangered because the surveys needed to prove that they really are extinct haven't been made. When they're finally officially extinct it's often many years after they really became extinct. Saying that some frog probably became extinct 10+ years ago but we only confirmed it now doesn't make a good sensational headline because then it really isn't considered news by most 'ordinary people'.

 

[Toddy]

Genetic diversity is hugely important. Where possible, any clade at any taxonomic level from localised population to species level should be conserved. However, we are in the middle of the fifth great extinction event in the history of the earth. We need to triage and we need to direct resources where they can be best used.

I think that you make an interesting point here CGSwans even though I don't agree. First of all I think that we should save all that we could. And second who should decide which species should are should not be saved? Who would be qualified to sign the death warrants?

 

[tigertiger]

Let's be realistic too: the majority of people don't care about diversity. A cute fluffy tiger or a large and popular zoo rhino is more likely to get sympathy (and therefore money) than perhaps an endangered fish species.

 

[dragon(ele)nerd]

True, if a well known animal e.g. like Lion is in real danger, obviously much more time and effort will go into saving it then some turtle that the majority public don't have much appreciation for.