The BBC reports on research, published in BMC Biology, pointing to the possibility that there may be at least six species of giraffe in Africa. Quoting: "'Using molecular techniques we found that giraffes can be classified into six groups that are reproductively isolated and not interbreeding,' David Brown, the lead author of the study and a geneticist at... UCLA told BBC News. 'The results were a surprise because although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely.'"
Paraphrasing the sequence of this thread Person A: "niggers and spics 2+2=4" Person B: "Racist" You: "You mean he's incorrect? Two plus two is NOT four?"
No. He meant person A was a racist ass (and/or a deliberate troll).
African-Americans and Hispanic people aren't disproportionately located in low income housing?
That is a simple fact.
Someone who thinks that fact is relevant to mention may or may not be a racist, and it is reasonable to consider the context to see if it was indeed a reasonable relevant point or if it was motivated by bigotry.
Someone who rants about "niggers and spics" is a racist ass (and/or a deliberately trolling), regardless of whatever is said along with "niggers and spics".
Hitler said 2+2=4. He may even have used 2+2=4 somewhere as one step in his rationalization for exterminating Jews and other "undesirables". A true fact is a true fact, no matter who utters it. And equally, the fact that some literal datum is true does not necessarily make it relevant, and does not mean that it is being applied in a valid context mental chain of intent and conclusion.
Here is a dirty little fact that most people don't know the average adult on welfare is a single WHITE woman with children. Furthermore white people live off of welfare as well and profit from it far more than African Americans or Hispanics, except in the corporate world they call it SUBSIDIES. All those farmers who get paid NOT to farm? All those airlines who receive money from the government to avoid bankruptcy. All of the oil companies who get huge tax breaks when they are earning record profits? Thats government sponsored WELFARE and the people who benefit from such welfare are largely middle class and upper middle class people who are largely white. Welfare programs for the poor are absolute chump change compared to the amount of money corporations and by proxy their shareholders take from the government.
Well, I am no biologist... But from what I know of most birds, most species can't interbreed... there are sub species... like a scarlet macaw can reproduce with a blue and gold and you get a catalina.... but a Parakeet cannot breed with a macaw... If they ever do... I think I might want one then... but the macaw would eat the poor Parakeet... wouldn't it be better to say 6 subspecies of giraffe?
Well, no... You would name them... birds for example... Conure is the species and then the sub species are: nanday, sun, jenday, cherry head, patagonian, green cheek, cinamon cheek, peach front, etc... Why not the Kranfer Giraffe, Picard Giraffe, etc etc
"giraffe - Wiktionary
giraffe (plural giraffes). A ruminant, of the genus Giraffa [wiktionary.org], of the African Savannah with long legs and highly elongated neck, which make it the tallest..."
So, if they haven't gotten the DNA analysis wrong (I think they may have), they would bump the genus up to specie and run the a, b, c, d, e, f routine - works for me:)
Someone want to link me the Monty Python script this is taken from so I can see where this comment originated?
Oh you might be wondering how I know its a Monty Python quote without knowing the reference? Its elementary, you see: * Its been modded 2, Funny so it could be a joke. * It makes very little sense in this context confirms it is a joke. * A very British accent is being used so obviously the joke is of English (the country, not the language) origin. * This is a site for nerds so unless a cult of The Goodies [wikipedia.org] has risen up while I wasn't looking, it has to be a Monty Python reference.
wouldn't it be better to say 6 subspecies of giraffe?
IAAB, and yes, that's absolutely correct. They're subspecies.
You get the same thing with the house mouse, mus musculus -- subspecies that are genetically distinct and geographically isolated, but which will interbreed in captivity (and in bordering zones in the wild). It's presumed that a lower fitness in the offspring of cross-subspecies matings in bordering zones keeps the subspecies separate.
"Currently giraffes are considered to represent a single species classified into multiple subspecies."
The story contrasts this current view with the new DNA studies that show at least 6 different giraffe species. So the news is that giraffes actually are of different species, not subspecies as previously thought.
Someone can correct me if I'm off my nut here but: I think that's the major definition, but further categories can be made on things like different physical or (like in this study) genetic characteristics. Also, if the populations are genetically (and possibly morphologically, as the summary suggests) and do not interbreed in the wild that would suggest that giraffes may be well divided into subspecies.
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
I am no biologist. What about Tiger + Lion = Liger? Tigers and Lions don't breed in the wild (geographic reasons, mostly!). A lion is one species, a tiger is another species, and a liger is a third species, all in the genus Panthera.
If anyone would like to educate me on this that's fine, I willingly profess my ignorance in this classification system!
By "breeding" scientists usually mean producing fertile offspring. "Ligers", alas, are sterile, as well as mules, as far as I know.
I am tempted, but lazy, to look into an original peer-reviewed article to find out if "zoo offspring" of different kinds of giraffes is fertile or not.
"One fairly extreme example is that lions and tigers will hybridize in captivity, and at least some of the offspring have been reported to be fertile."
Tigers and Lions don't breed in the wild (geographic reasons, mostly!
Well that and everyone knows tigers are sluts and so no-one will consider sleeping with one unless they've got a vet nearby to help treat them for the STDs the poor lion invariably caught.
>> Although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely. > Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
Not necessarily. Defining a species is a real hassle, and hasn't been solved. In biology this is known as the Species Problem. You see, many populations - like, for example, these giraffes - could interbreed and produce viable offspring, but for many different reasons, like geographical isolation, different matin
Reproductive isolation is a major characteristic of speciation. Lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, etc are different species, but under unnatural conditions may mate and even produce offspring. Depending on how unrelated the species are, the offspring may or may not be viable.
Speciation is not as cut-and-dried as you might think. Reproductively isolated populations diverge more and more over time, and the speciation becomes more and more pronounced.
Does anyone know how long (on average) two groups have to be isolated for before they diverge sufficiently that they'll no longer be able to reproduce fertile offspring with each other? Is it tens of thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
Depending on how unrelated the species are, the offspring may or may not be viable.
Maybe you need to find other examples then. In ligers, only the female is viable because the X is comparable enough. We have no idea as to whether this viability extends past a generation yet or causes long term problems. Mules are sterile with rare exceptions.
Reproductive isolation is simply the first step, otherwise a simple catastrophe which isolates a group creates a new species and this is not the case.
Yes. That was the reason I posted this in my journal. Other examples: races of humans: diverged thousands and thousands years ago, yet considered one species.
Domesticated animals: some of the dog breeds are so different in size, that they hardly can copulate... One species.
Another example: finches, that Darwin classified even into different genera, only later to be found easily interbreeding. (same finches that inspired him to his famous "origin of species" idea).
Most people are familiar with what is called the Biological Species Concept, which defines species as a reproductively isolated group of organisms that can all interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. This works pretty well for most animals, but terribly for plants and many animals. Plants that are quite different can interbreed frequently, but do not because they are isolated by things such as flowering time, pollinator species etc... Then you get into weird intransitivity issues such
"Isolated" and "Not interbreeding" sound more like an attitude than an incapability. Much like a (I live in Israel, so bear with me) Palestinian male will be "Isolated" from Tel Aviv and "Not interbreed" with his Jewish female counterpart (which is a shame, because there are a lot of hot chicks in this country). Still, once you move 'm to Palo Alto on a tech salary and they become atheists, they might still not interbreed but bang each other to smithereens (and I mean that in the best of ways).
The legs of giraffes are filled with various types of fruit juice. You see, giraffes love drinking fruit juices - pineapple, boysenberry, mango-lemon - but their bodes have no real use for fruit juice, so it all trickes down to their legs where it stays and squishes around. This should have been obvious to yo
"The female Maasai giraffe may be looking at the male reticulated giraffe and thinking, 'I don't look like you; I don't want to mate with you'," Mr Brown explained.
So, in short...the giraffes are racists unless they live in a "multicultural" environment (ie: a zoo)?
Don't assume this is a racist situation, based on spots arrangement or something so trivial.
This is obviously a division based on politics. I am sure once the primaries in the US are over, they will be down to two, three at most "subspecies" of giraffe.
I mean come on, would you want to mate with a Hillary supporter?
Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, I'm not about to try and stop you in this type of debate. I think if we ever ended up with empirical evidence supporting evolution in the sense of macro evolution, they would at least have to acknowledge it. I don't see how they could make a claim further along the chain then that point, it either exists or it doesn't exist. On another note, the definition for species has changed over the years. This is probably why it is so hard of a topic to get straight
Same thing with people... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:4, Insightful)
Person A: "niggers and spics 2+2=4"
Person B: "Racist"
You: "You mean he's incorrect? Two plus two is NOT four?"
No. He meant person A was a racist ass (and/or a deliberate troll).
African-Americans and Hispanic people aren't disproportionately located in low income housing?
That is a simple fact.
Someone who thinks that fact is relevant to mention may or may not be a racist, and it is reasonable to consider the context to see if it was indeed a reasonable relevant point or if it was motivated by bigotry.
Someone who rants about "niggers and spics" is a racist ass (and/or a deliberately trolling), regardless of whatever is said along with "niggers and spics".
Hitler said 2+2=4. He may even have used 2+2=4 somewhere as one step in his rationalization for exterminating Jews and other "undesirables". A true fact is a true fact, no matter who utters it. And equally, the fact that some literal datum is true does not necessarily make it relevant, and does not mean that it is being applied in a valid context mental chain of intent and conclusion.
-
Parent
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Breeding? (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Breeding? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean, like:
- giraffa
- giraffb
- giraffc
- giraffd
- giraffe
- girafff
?Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Breeding? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reticulated Giraffe
Masai Giraffe
Rothschild Giraffe
South African Giraffe
Thornicroft Giraffe
Nigerian Giraffe
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
giraffe (plural giraffes). A ruminant, of the genus Giraffa [wiktionary.org], of the African Savannah with long legs and highly elongated neck, which make it the tallest
So, if they haven't gotten the DNA analysis wrong (I think they may have), they would bump the genus up to specie and run the a, b, c, d, e, f routine - works for me
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Re:Breeding? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh you might be wondering how I know its a Monty Python quote without knowing the reference? Its elementary, you see:
* Its been modded 2, Funny so it could be a joke.
* It makes very little sense in this context confirms it is a joke.
* A very British accent is being used so obviously the joke is of English (the country, not the language) origin.
* This is a site for nerds so unless a cult of The Goodies [wikipedia.org] has risen up while I wasn't looking, it has to be a Monty Python reference.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Breeding? (Score:5, Informative)
You get the same thing with the house mouse, mus musculus -- subspecies that are genetically distinct and geographically isolated, but which will interbreed in captivity (and in bordering zones in the wild). It's presumed that a lower fitness in the offspring of cross-subspecies matings in bordering zones keeps the subspecies separate.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Currently giraffes are considered to represent a single species classified into multiple subspecies."
The story contrasts this current view with the new DNA studies that show at least 6 different giraffe species. So the news is that giraffes actually are of different species, not subspecies as previously thought.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's the major definition, but further categories can be made on things like different physical or (like in this study) genetic characteristics. Also, if the populations are genetically (and possibly morphologically, as the summary suggests) and do not interbreed in the wild that would suggest that giraffes may be well divided into subspecies.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no biologist. What about Tiger + Lion = Liger? Tigers and Lions don't breed in the wild (geographic reasons, mostly!). A lion is one species, a tiger is another species, and a liger is a third species, all in the genus Panthera.
If anyone would like to educate me on this that's fine, I willingly profess my ignorance in this classification system!
Re: (Score:2)
I am tempted, but lazy, to look into an original peer-reviewed article to find out if "zoo offspring" of different kinds of giraffes is fertile or not.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem [wikipedia.org]:
"One fairly extreme example is that lions and tigers will hybridize in captivity, and at least some of the offspring have been reported to be fertile."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I reverse my view on this again: since only ligresses are fertile, I would not consider this successful fully fertile offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species?
Not necessarily. Defining a species is a real hassle, and hasn't been solved. In biology this is known as the Species Problem. You see, many populations - like, for example, these giraffes - could interbreed and produce viable offspring, but for many different reasons, like geographical isolation, different matin
Contradiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Contradiction? (Score:5, Informative)
Speciation is not as cut-and-dried as you might think. Reproductively isolated populations diverge more and more over time, and the speciation becomes more and more pronounced.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you need to find other examples then. In ligers, only the female is viable because the X is comparable enough. We have no idea as to whether this viability extends past a generation yet or causes long term problems. Mules are sterile with rare exceptions.
Reproductive isolation is simply the first step, otherwise a simple catastrophe which isolates a group creates a new species and this is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
races of humans: diverged thousands and thousands years ago, yet considered one species.
Domesticated animals: some of the dog breeds are so different in size, that they hardly can copulate... One species.
Another example: finches, that Darwin classified even into different genera, only later to be found easily interbreeding. (same finches that inspired him to his famous "origin of species" idea).
This is an example of pseudoscience, when sci
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, once you move 'm to Palo Alto on a tech salary and they become atheists, they might still not interbreed but bang each other to smithereens (and I mean that in the best of ways).
As another sub
Re: (Score:2)
So? I have not attempted to breed with Anna Nichole Smith, that does not mean that I am a different species.
Question, which was larger, the number of Californians wo ran for Governor or the number who claimed paternity of the child?
In related moves (Score:2, Funny)
Confirming the almot accepted idea that men are from earth and women are from planet far away and at constant war every 28 days.
The definitive word on giraffes (Score:2, Informative)
They call this science? Bah. Everything you need to know about giraffes is contained in this brilliant, revolutionary book:
http://www.amazon.com/Giraffes-Doris-Haggis-Whey/dp/1932416978
For example:
Re: (Score:2)
Now that was a well-spent dollar!
Racist animals (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in short...the giraffes are racists unless they live in a "multicultural" environment (ie: a zoo)?
Now, where have I heard that before?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't assume... (Score:2)
This is obviously a division based on politics. I am sure once the primaries in the US are over, they will be down to two, three at most "subspecies" of giraffe.
I mean come on, would you want to mate with a Hillary supporter?
in that case ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Glen Quagmire.... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey wait a minute, you're not the same giraffe from last night !
Molecular (Score:2)
"New, Fallout Man. With Kung Fu grip and the Power Of the Atom! (Note: Contains REAL ATOMS!!!)"
Logic error? (Score:3, Funny)
By this logic, supermodels and Slashdotters are members of different species.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I care... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, the definition for species has changed over the years. This is probably why it is so hard of a topic to get straight