Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Kunga Is the Oldest Known Hybrid Bred By Humans (sciencenews.org) 24

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceNews: Meet the kunga, the earliest known hybrid animal bred by people. The ancient equine from Syro-Mesopotamia existed around 4,500 years ago and was a cross between a donkey and a hemippe, a type of Asiatic wild ass, researchers report January 14 in Science Advances. Horses didn't appear in this region of Asia until 4,000 years ago, centuries after their domestication in Russia. But dozens of equine skeletons were excavated in the early 2000s from a royal burial complex dating back to 2600 B.C. at Umm el-Marra in northern Syria. The animals, whose physical features didn't match any known equine species, appear to be "kungas" -- horselike animals seen in artwork and referenced in clay tablets predating horses by centuries.

"They were highly valued, very expensive," says paleogeneticist Eva-Maria Geigl of Institut Jacques Monod in Paris. Geigl and her colleagues analyzed a kunga's genome, or genetic instruction book, and compared it with those of horses, donkeys and Asiatic wild asses, including the hemippe (Equus hemionus hemippus), which has been extinct since 1929. The kunga's mother was a donkey and its father a hemippe, making it the oldest evidence of humans creating hybrid animals. A mule from 1000 B.C. in Anatolia reported by the same research group in 2020 is the next oldest hybrid. Geigl thinks kungas were created for warfare, as they could pull wagons. Coaxing donkeys into dangerous situations is hard, she says, and no Asiatic wild ass can be tamed. But a hybrid might have had the characteristics people sought.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Kunga Is the Oldest Known Hybrid Bred By Humans

Comments Filter:
  • If only we had bred EVs then we could have avoided this whole climate change mess! ;)

  • "The ancient equine from Syro-Mesopotamia existed around 4,500 years ago and was a cross between a donkey and a hemippe, a type of Asiatic wild ass...

    I know a girl who's a cross between an English parliamentarian and god only knows what, but she's certainly got a type of Asiatic wild ass. She's only been around for about 25 years, though.

  • We kept on breeding asses until we came up with politicians.
  • So making a few base edits to DNA is scary but hybridizing two species naturally is not crazy?

    • Anti GMO parties often believe there is some magic to natural selection. If we hybridize two species, the would conclude natural selection over time would make the hybrid "balanced".

      I have no issue with GMO and if we consider monoculture, it likely could simply be replacing lost genes but the conclusion by these groups is we cannot possible understand well enough how one gene affects another. This conclusion is probably fair for more complex organisms. For instance, humans have far less genes and the comple

      • the would conclude natural selection over time would make the hybrid "balanced".

        Why would you conclude that given that we are living in the middle of a global pandemic caused by the natural evolution of a virus?

        • Gaia theory is the type of thought which also represents this notion of "balance". Using it as background, you could say the virus is attempting to population check humanity to achieve homeostasis because we are disrupting that.

          More so if we consider the virus as it is, omicron seems to spread easier but cause death less, so in some way it has developed a balance. Whether or not this persists is a matter of time and seeing what other variants appear.

      • Most anti GMO folks have a very good idea why they are anti.
        Most pro GMO folks:
        a) don't know why the anti folks are anti, and thus have stupid wild accusations
        b) don't really know why they are pro

        Hint: Anti GMO parties often believe there is some magic to natural selection. No one believes such bullshit.
        But perhaps you are smart enough to explain how a chicken protein ends up in a tomato by natural selection. And why it is not mandatory to label such a tomato as GMO food - to prevent people with chicken all

        • I have had a number of friends who are anti-GMO so I actually know them well but further I will demonstrate my point by showing you just exemplified it.

          One simple chicken protein inside a tomato is very unlikely to cause an allergic reaction. There isn't something magically that makes your body know it's a chicken protein. Instead the body is allergic to one to half a dozen proteins in the chicken. Chickens have roughly 16.7k genes and of those not all even code for proteins of which the addition of a gene

          • One simple chicken protein inside a tomato is very unlikely to cause an allergic reaction.
            That is simply plain wrong. And is the reason why those tomatoes and products are forbidden in Europe.

            Sorry, makes no sense to discuss with one who has no real clue about the topic.

            Now if you want a stamp on a food that says GMO, fine, but don't act like your really informed on the matter.
            I'm actually are very informed on that matter. And gave two simple examples. Do you want me to write a 100 pages rant?
            You can google

            • You're full of shit. When you quote a stat and don't reference it then it's plain as day.

              https://geneticliteracyproject... [geneticlit...roject.org]

              88% of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while only 37% of the public believes that’s true—a 51-percentage point gap

              • AAAS that is an american science organisation.
                Hint: I'm not american.

                So much to your full of shit
                Insulting dumbass.

        • by dasunt ( 249686 )

          But perhaps you are smart enough to explain how a chicken protein ends up in a tomato by natural selection. And why it is not mandatory to label such a tomato as GMO food - to prevent people with chicken allergies from buying it?

          Are you asking how a gene from an entirely different kingdom can end up in plants naturally? Because it does happen [nih.gov].

          The TL;DR summary of that link is that we know plants have picked up genes from bacteria, despite plants being more closely related to animals than to bacteria. I

          • I explicitly asked about chicken to tomato: for a damn reason.

            That plants take up genes via bacteria is old news, you learn that even pretty early in biology in school. Perhaps because I'm german, and german scientists discovered that? So they put it as a side not in biology classes :D who knows.
            And this another reason to be against GMO. Because it allows so called "horizontal gene transfer" from an GMO plant to an non GMO plant, without anyone noticing instantly.

            • by dasunt ( 249686 )

              That plants take up genes via bacteria is old news, you learn that even pretty early in biology in school.

              Are you referring to mitochondria and chloroplasts, or actual horizontal gene transfer?

              We learned about the former in school, but not the latter. Obviously both mitochondria and cholorplasts are not an example of horizontal gene transfer, since they keep their own genetic code separate from the nucleus.

              I'm trying to figure out what you mean by German scientists discovered it. Richard Altmann (Ger

              • Horizontal Gene transfer means that genes are transported from one species to another one. Usually via bacteria. AFAIK it only happens in the plants kingdom.
                Perhaps in english you use a different term? I simply translated the german one, word by word, into English: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] click on the english translation at the left.

    • So making a few base edits to DNA is scary but hybridizing two species naturally is not crazy?

      Making GMOs is a technology. It is not good or evil, it all depends on what you do with it. What frightens me is since carefully planned genetic engineering is unacceptable, some European companies are now using an alternative technology. They expose plant seeds to high levels or radiation to induce random mutations and then scan the results for useful mutations. Of course, they have no way of telling what other mutations might have occurred. No one has objected to this technology, which appears far m

      • by dasunt ( 249686 )

        Making GMOs is a technology. It is not good or evil, it all depends on what you do with it. What frightens me is since carefully planned genetic engineering is unacceptable, some European companies are now using an alternative technology. They expose plant seeds to high levels or radiation to induce random mutations and then scan the results for useful mutations. Of course, they have no way of telling what other mutations might have occurred. No one has objected to this technology, which appears far more da

    • Hybridizing two species and natural selection both require a big "survival of the fittest" filter. The hybrids have to make it to adulthood and (ideally) be fertile - and a lot of evolution points have gone into "not dying" and "reproduction". You are blending two similar fully-functional species that have thousands of years of successful reproduction together hoping for a viable offspring that has the desired traits. This tends to happen slowly and the "rejects" are often still viable and useful specime
  • If you're looking for hybrid wild asses, look no further than TikTok.

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...