Discovery of 'Cryptic Species' Shows Earth is Even More Biologically Diverse (theguardian.com) 37
A growing number of "cryptic species" hiding in plain sight have been unmasked in the past year, driven in part by the rise of DNA barcoding, a technique that can identify and differentiate between animal and plant species using their genetic divergence. From a report: The discovery of new species of aloe, African leaf-nosed bats and chameleons that appear similar to the human eye but are in fact many and separate have thrilled and worried conservationists. Scientists say our planet might be more biologically diverse than previously thought, and estimates for the total number of species could be far higher than the current best guess of 8.7 million. But cryptic discoveries often mean that species once considered common and widespread are actually several, some of which may be endangered and require immediate protection.
The Jonah's mouse lemur was only unveiled to the world this summer but is already on the verge of extinction. The newly described Popa langur in Myanmar, previously confused with another species, numbers around 200 and is likely to be classified as critically endangered, threatened by habitat loss and deforestation. The discovery of these cryptic species has been driven in part by the rise of DNA barcoding, a technique that can identify and differentiate between animal and plant species using their genetic divergence. African elephants, Indian vine snakes and South American neotropical birds are among the growing number of unmaskings. Thousands more are expected in the coming years, from living creatures and museum samples.
The Jonah's mouse lemur was only unveiled to the world this summer but is already on the verge of extinction. The newly described Popa langur in Myanmar, previously confused with another species, numbers around 200 and is likely to be classified as critically endangered, threatened by habitat loss and deforestation. The discovery of these cryptic species has been driven in part by the rise of DNA barcoding, a technique that can identify and differentiate between animal and plant species using their genetic divergence. African elephants, Indian vine snakes and South American neotropical birds are among the growing number of unmaskings. Thousands more are expected in the coming years, from living creatures and museum samples.
Best guess (Score:2)
total number of species could be far higher than the current best guess of 8.7 million.
How on earth do they estimate that?
Re:Best guess (Score:5, Informative)
How on earth do they estimate that?
Biologists record the number of species present in many locations representative of many different ecosystems and then extrapolate. The result is only a rough approximation, which is why they call it a "guess".
The point of TFA is that DNA barcoding indicates that there has been a systematic undercount.
Re: Best guess (Score:1)
Or a definition of species that is wrong.
I wonder when they will start calling black women,black men, white women and white men four different species ... (The current definition forbids that, by the way. But hey, gotta name a new species!)
Re: (Score:2)
How can the definition of species be wrong? It's tautological. "Species" is just a convenient way for scientists to classify lifeforms.
I started writing a complete reply and then I just had to stop myself. Think about what you wrote. Really. Just think about it. If it helps, go to Wikipedia and type in "species."
Re: (Score:2)
How can the definition of species be wrong?
When you base decisions on that definition, the definition has consequences. If for example, you decide whether or not a group of animals is unique and requires protection based on that definition, there are economic consequences.
The term "species" has traditionally been used to denote a distinct group. and the ability to interbreed has been used as a criterium to determine how distinct a group is. Can't interbreed->different species.
If you're switching to a model where every genetic difference is seen a
Re: (Score:2)
you decide whether or not a group of animals is unique and requires protection based on that definition, there are economic consequences
These slippers are Albino African Endangered Rhino... no, wait... let me check the DNA barcode...
Re: (Score:2)
I do not dispute the fact that there are consequences for how we define a species. Neither do I dispute the idea that the definition may need to be modified to be optimally useful. But when the OP suggested that the definition could be "wrong" he displayed his ignorance. That implies that there is a "right" definition. Personally, the economic consequences are, well, inconsequential. Scientists should not be concerned with such trivialities—we're not talking about the survival of the economy here, we'
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what species of species they're using (Score:1)
but not always:
Re:Depends on what species of species they're usin (Score:5, Informative)
Biology is messy, especially when it comes to sex. So rigid definitions don't work. For instance, lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Those offspring can also produce fertile offspring. So, by the rigid definition, they are a single species.
But lions and tigers have very different behavior, hunting strategies, and mating strategies. Tigers live solitary lives (other than a mother and her cubs) and hunt alone. Lions are the most social of cats, they hunt cooperatively, and sisters will even nurse each other's cubs.
But the offspring of a lion and a tiger don't adapt to either niche. They can't survive in the wild. The hybrids only exist because people create them. So lions and tigers are two different species.
Another messy situation is ring species [wikipedia.org]. An example of this is the Larus Gull. They live in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, Scandanavia, Kola, and Siberia. They inhabit a ring around the earth, and there is no non-breeding division at any point on the ring. But gulls from opposite sides of the ring, say Alaska and Iceland, can't interbreed, even though either can interbreed with gulls from both Canada and Siberia.
So by the "non-interbreeding" rule, Larus gulls are not a single species. Yet, there is no way to split them into two species by the same rule because there is no logical dividing line.
Re: Depends on what species of species they're usi (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and some guy in rural Kenya also has very different hunting strategies, behavior, diet, "fur" color, size, etc, etc from you and me.
Doesn't make him a different species.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You are comparing innate behaviors to learned behaviors. Kenyan children who are adopted to American families do not continue to hunt like Kenyans, behave like Kenynas, and eat like Kenyans. Unless I missed that bit of research. I have multiple relatives who were adopted from countries far and wide—they act like Americans.
I can't believe there are people on this site dumb enough to award you mod points for talking out your ass about things you don't understand.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Phylogenetics itself is clarifying the concept of "species" which is part of what TFA is describing. We can directly measure degrees of relatedness, and whether apparent populations consist of non-breeding groups (whether or not they have the ability to breed).
The concept will never be cut-and-dried though. Increasingly, with threatened species, they are finding there are distinct sub-populations that should also be separately protected to maintain species diversity which is essential for long term survival
Re: (Score:2)
will we find that there are cryptic species within what is commonly considered human? And if there are, then what?
Well, there are lots of people who have neanderthal genes. At this point in our history, if there were one race that was biologically distinct enough that it could be categorized as a unique species, we would know about it by now. There is a slim chance that this might apply to some uncontacted peoples, but it's very doubtful because we know their lineages and humans are such a young species that a major diversion is unlikely. Genetically, humans today are not all that different from paleolithic humans. If
But We Can Say With Confidence "No Bigfoot" (Score:2)
Environmental DNA sampling which has proven extremely powerful in revealing the presence of unseen species, and cheap, fast, genetic sequencing generally has driven the nails into the coffin of the "Big Foot" legend, and buried it six feet deep. No one has come up with a single sample of DNA from an unknown hominid, or other primate in North America. All its takes is one sample to prove its existence, it it does exist.
The Big Foot enthusiasts assert that this creature is found in every state, with thousands [bfro.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Big Foot doesn't have DNA, it is an RNA gene creature. Not looking so smug now, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there are powerful interest groups with a vested interest in covering up the evidence.
If bigfoot is identified, then the global warming, moon landing, round-earth, smoking-causes-cancer, and OJ-Simpson-really-did-it hoaxes will be soon be exposed as well. Our entire civilization could come tumbling down.
How are we defining species? (Score:2)
I have to ask what is the definition of a new species?
Is it inablilty to breed with related species?
Lack of willingness to cross breed?
Lack of opportunity to cross breed?
Distance in terms of genetic variation?
Re:How are we defining species? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we're defining it however we get to say there are more things we need to protect.
Re: How are we defining species? (Score:2)
To name, you mean.
Re: How are we defining species? (Score:2)
AFAIK the definition is the ability to produce fertile offspring.
No, I do not think they tried to make them fuck, create offspring, and then tried to see if that offspring could create ofspring too.
What if DNA doesn't make a different species? (Score:4, Insightful)
What if that distinction is actually pointless navel gazing?
What if genetic variation in a species is bigger than we defined it as for some reason?
What if you cannot call it a new species just so you can give it a name and get fame?
Re: (Score:1)
What if you slept through biology class, and sometime later posted random nonsense out of your ass on slashdot?
After industrialized agriculture, most is (Score:2)
> What if that distinction is actually pointless navel gazing?
Animals generally spend most of their energy trying to get food.
Humans have more or less had enough food since farming machines were invented, so now a lot of what we spend our time in is various forms of pointless navel gazing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Species" is a pretty fuzzy definition to start with. Populations can be basically genetically identical, with only minor difference in phenotype, yet can be considered different species because they live on different land masses and can't swim that far to interbreed. Like you say, different DNA doesn't make it a different species, unless they aren't interbreeding, and then it does. That doesn't necessarily mean only sterile pairings or infertile hybrid offspring from pairings either. It could just be becau
Biology. Is. Not. Science. (Score:2)
Biology has no first principles with which to develop hypotheses and test same. Biology _cannot_ say in any reasoned way how many species there should be let alone how many there are.
Biologists are nothing more than collectors of data with (in majority) a poor understanding of statistics and anything else related to the useful processing of data. A statement like "Scientists say our planet might be more biologically diverse than previously thought, and estimates ... " is laughable and tragic. What exactl
Re: (Score:2)
Going by your definition, nothing is a science except physics and chemistry. This is a worse take than those who claim that psychology isn't a science (at least the field of psychology is packed to the gills with quacks, leading to a justifiable skepticism of the field).
What exactly, in non- hand-waving terms, is a 'species'?
What exactly, in non-hand-waving terms is a metalloid?
Why exactly is it a surprise that two similarly _looking_ animals might have different DNA?
It's not. What's surprising is that this is the case more often than previously thought.
biology is nothing more than an observational vocation
Which is what makes it a science. Sciences are disciplined defined by empiricism, not their confine
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like... (Score:2)
Sounds like a bullshit basis for a power grab. Redefine 'species' in an attempt to grab more power over land and resources by abuse of existing laws. Screw activists. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. Don't let them pull off this end run around power grab.
I can generally tell 'em apart... (Score:2)