Scientists Discover Two New Mammals in Australia (cnet.com) 27
CNET reports:
Two new species of greater glider, a cat-size marsupial that lives in the forests of Australia, have been discovered after scientists ran DNA tests on new tissue samples of the animals. A new study published in Nature's public access Scientific Reports journal details the findings...
Using genetic sequencing tests from tissue samples taken from various gliders found in areas of Queensland, Victoria, as well as museum specimens, researchers were able to confirm differences in the gliders' DNA... The new study focusing on the genetics of greater gliders found three distinct species living in the southern, central and northern areas of Australia. Researchers from Australian National University, the University of Canberra, CSIRO and James Cook University worked together on the study.
"There has been speculation for a while that there was more than one species of greater glider but now we have proof from the DNA. It changes the whole way we think about them," study researcher Denise McGregor told The Guardian.
Using genetic sequencing tests from tissue samples taken from various gliders found in areas of Queensland, Victoria, as well as museum specimens, researchers were able to confirm differences in the gliders' DNA... The new study focusing on the genetics of greater gliders found three distinct species living in the southern, central and northern areas of Australia. Researchers from Australian National University, the University of Canberra, CSIRO and James Cook University worked together on the study.
"There has been speculation for a while that there was more than one species of greater glider but now we have proof from the DNA. It changes the whole way we think about them," study researcher Denise McGregor told The Guardian.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.thefreedictionary.... [thefreedictionary.com]
Any of various nonplacental mammals of the infraclass Metatheria, including kangaroos, opossums, bandicoots, and wombats, found principally in Australia and the Americas, and typically bearing young that suckle and develop after birth in the mother's pouch. These species were formerly placed in the order Marsupialia.
Re:Mammals? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mammals evolved from a branch of reptiles around 300 million years ago. Marsupials evolved from a branch of mammals around 85-66 million years ago. [ref, 2m30s to 3m48s] [youtube.com]
However, it's a bit like calling a new bird a dinosaur; because while technically correct, it's needlessly unspecific.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless it's a girl, then it’s needlessly specific. ;)
On a more SJW note: ... Don't assume her domain!
Blob: "Hey, who are you calling alive!? Lifeism! Check your deuterostoma!!"
Re: Mammals? (Score:2)
Mammals! (Score:3)
Marsupials are not mammals!
Yes, they are [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Marsupials are not mammals
!
How politically incorrect and un-woke from you!
These marsupials sexually identify themselves as mammals.
Re: (Score:2)
These marsupials sexually identify themselves as mammals.
Well given how they rear their young in a pouch they clearly don't identify themselves as mammals. I mean their offspring may identify themselves as mammals and they would rightfully win a Darwin award for doing so since it's not possible for a marsupial offspring to be raised as a traditional male.
Sigh I need a coffee, I got too sciency when I should have just LOLed.
The real question (Score:5, Funny)
Since this is Australia, will they try to kill you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the dropbear is the only deadly mammal in Australia. ...
Snakes and spiders kill a few, but all the really deadly stuff is in the water: sharks, crocodiles, box jellyfish, Irukandji, blue-ring octopus, cone shells, stonefish,
If visiting Australia, *never* enter the water.
Re: (Score:2)
And remember before anyone thinks dropbears are fake, the Australia Museum has a page on the Thylarctos plummetus https://australian.museum/lear... [australian.museum]
Looks like meat is back on the menu, boys! (Score:1)
Questionable definition of "species" (Score:2, Interesting)
Differences in DNA do not make something a different species. Otherwise yo momma is a different species that you! (Cue the "ba-dum, tiss".)
AFAIK the accepted definition is that they can't reproduce with one another to produce offspring that themselves can reproduce. (Otherwise horses and donkeys would be the same species.)
So, what I want to know: If they look exactly the same, and only differ in their DNA ... which TFS kinda implies ... can they produce fertile offspring or not?
Re: (Score:1)
Politics.
It's a new species if it is endangered in a certain ecosystem. Even if it is an invasive pest in the next valley over.
Re:Questionable definition of "species" (Score:4, Interesting)
There are around a dozen different versions of the definition of 'species', even Darwin was dubious about what the actual definition should be although the concept itself is useful. Pigeon fanciers (of which Darwin was one) argue about whether rock doves, tumblers, fantails, etc. should be considered different species or not. Even things so basic as the number of cervical vertebrae vary from one to the other, and if left alone they refuse to mate with each other. On the other hand they're mutually fertile if forced to mate. The same with grizzly bears, polar bears and brown bears. Different life styles, refuse to mate with each other if given a choice, but mutually fertile. Are they one species, or three?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the genetics of the critters involved. Some small percentage of mules are fertile and can have offspring, so are horses and burros the same species? Great Danes and Chihuahuas are unable to mate, and if artificially inseminated there are no offspring, so are they different species? The whole topic is a mess, and five biologists will have seven different opinions on where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:2)
In human circles, that's called race. But then, what constitutes race is rife with politics and a whole different can of worms. 8)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to species, says biological anthropologist Rebecca Ackermann, “forget everything you learned in high school.” The classic textbook definition, known as the biological species concept, is a group of organisms that only produce fertile offspring with one another. By this rule, domesticated dogs are a single species — whether dachshund or Great Dane — but a donkey and a horse are not. Ackermann, a professor at South Africa’s University of Cape Town, favors a different definition that’s not dependent on successful sex: a group of organisms sharing a mix of anatomical, behavioral and genetic traits that distinguishes them from other groups.
-- Discover Magazine [discovermagazine.com]
Re:Questionable definition of "species" (Score:4, Interesting)
AFAIK the accepted definition is that they can't reproduce ...
No, outdated because it is not useful.
Here, scientists mean that DNA tests have shown there are separate populations living in the same area that do not interbreed.
Whether they could be artificially crossed in captivity to make viable offspring is not the point.
So "species" now comes down to self-identification. If the sugar-gliders identify as one group, and only mate within that group, they are for practical purposes a species. It is a very modern progressive approach :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK the accepted definition is that they can't reproduce
Not the definition is they "won't" reproduce. Ironically for your post "can't" is a function of their DNA.