[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 95, Issue 8
Monique Reed
monique at bio.tamu.edu
Wed Feb 12 13:28:56 CST 2014
Great! Guess I wrote it on the wrong day!
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:00 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Taxacom Digest, Vol 95, Issue 8
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
When responding to a message in a digest package, please do not copy the entire digest into your reply as it is tedious for your readers to scroll through pages of unrelated material and older replies. Many thanks!
____________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding (Michael A. Ivie)
2. Re: Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding (Ken Kinman)
3. Specimen request (fresh or loaned pinned) - Phlaeopterus
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Omaliinae) (Derek Sikes)
4. Inbreeding, health, and evolution (Ken Kinman)
5. Re: Inbreeding, health, and evolution (Weakley, Alan)
6. Fwd: Inbreeding, health, and evolution (Michael Heads)
7. Re: Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding (Curtis Clark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:06:03 -0700
From: "Michael A. Ivie" <mivie at montana.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
To: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>, JF Mate
<aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <52FA749B.5000000 at montana.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Ken,
The public relations issue is one for the press to be responsible for.
What I object to is the pillorying of professional colleagues by other professionals, or in this case a highly qualified amateur in a professional forum, one that should know better. We in the US are grateful for European support against pseudoscience reactions to Evolution, i.e. Creationism, something that Europe simply doesn't have to deal with at home. Those who received a public education in Kansas that included Evolution should be particularly sensitive to this fact.
Well, Europe's equivalent pseudoscience issues are animal rights, homeopathy and GMO panic. We should give our European colleagues the same support against an ignorant public that we receive on the creationism issue.
When zoologists, amateur or professional, start bashing the professionals in Copenhagen for "inexcusable" behavior that is sound and considered management, it needs to be called. We should defend them, not pile on with an emotional and whipped up public. The PR public issues are a different sphere. Sure, maybe there was a secret way to do this that would not have had the press involved, but the management, the educational value of the involvement of observers and the decisions made should be supported by other professionals. We do not know all of the facts, the zookeepers in Copenhagen did.
All in all, the attention has provided a forum for people who have the intelligence to grasp it to learn about just what has to be done to keep these ex situ breeding programs going. When in Kruger, I saw a giraffe covered with a pride of lions, there was blood and gore everywhere, and cars with kids lined up with binoculars. Lets get real about this.
Watch this really excellent performance by one of the Copenhagen zookeepers who handled a really aggressive interview in a way that educates http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/02/11/093002.htm
Idiot interviewer: "In London we would not show school children this process, we would protect them from it." Excellent professional response "Why protect them from real life?" Bravo!
and read this:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1604402_10151854271042133_614472380_n.jpg
Mike
On 2/11/2014 9:01 AM, Ken Kinman wrote:
> Hi Jason, I certainly agree. It's a public relations disaster that should have been anticipated, especially cutting him up in a public setting after the public was already clearly upset about putting him down. The following news story is a good one from a Canadian perspective:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/giraffe-s-killing-in-copenhagen-reveals-z
> oos-dark-culling-practices-1.2530562
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:40:04 +0100
>> From: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
>>
>> I don?t think anybody (in this forum at least) is arguing against the
>> logic that Marius was, genetically speaking, dispensable. However the
>> emotional argument has been an unmitigated disaster:
>>
>> Google hits for Marius the Giraffe 110,000 Google hits for Giraffe
>> conservation 6,920
>>
>> He even has a Wikipedia page! Not a little one mind you, but a
>> detailed one started three days ago. The best bit is this: "Known for:
>> Killed and fed to the lions". Now this is publicity money just can?t
>> buy.
>>
>> The media coverage is even better. You?d think Copenhagen zoo is
>> running a modern version of the Fabulous Gourmet Club. Those 200
>> pounds of flesh are going to be awfully expensive. Geez. Couldn?t
>> they plug the animal before giving it a name and buried it?
>>
>> I think an infusion of realpolitik in the whole affair would have
>> been a better approach. Yes, couch nature enthusiasts may be
>> ignorant, or emotional, or mushy-headed bleeding hearts, but that is
>> the public, the ones that decides with their feet where to go for fun
>> and ultimately where tax dollars go to. So once the giraffe became
>> Marius The Giraffe and the euthanasia plan broke out in the news
>> channels, salvage the situation somehow to avoid the backlash. But
>> carving Melman and feeding it to Alex, well... it?s a tabloids dream.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:43:52 +0000
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
To: "Michael A. Ivie" <mivie at montana.edu>, JF Mate
<aphodiinaemate at gmail.com>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT148-W56D8D7FF9A083D2B46EA23C1930 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mike, I have nothing new to add. However, I found the views of conservationist Liz Tyson on the matter very interesting (especially the part about white lions): http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/opinion/giraffe-culling-against/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:06:03 -0700
> From: mivie at montana.edu
> To: kinman at hotmail.com; aphodiinaemate at gmail.com;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
>
> Ken,
>
> The public relations issue is one for the press to be responsible for.
> What I object to is the pillorying of professional colleagues by other
> professionals, or in this case a highly qualified amateur in a
> professional forum, one that should know better. We in the US are
> grateful for European support against pseudoscience reactions to
> Evolution, i.e. Creationism, something that Europe simply doesn't have
> to deal with at home. Those who received a public education in Kansas
> that included Evolution should be particularly sensitive to this fact.
> Well, Europe's equivalent pseudoscience issues are animal rights,
> homeopathy and GMO panic. We should give our European colleagues the
> same support against an ignorant public that we receive on the
> creationism issue.
>
> When zoologists, amateur or professional, start bashing the
> professionals in Copenhagen for "inexcusable" behavior that is sound
> and considered management, it needs to be called. We should defend
> them, not pile on with an emotional and whipped up public. The PR
> public issues are a different sphere. Sure, maybe there was a secret
> way to do this that would not have had the press involved, but the
> management, the educational value of the involvement of observers and
> the decisions made should be supported by other professionals. We do
> not know all of the facts, the zookeepers in Copenhagen did.
>
> All in all, the attention has provided a forum for people who have the
> intelligence to grasp it to learn about just what has to be done to
> keep these ex situ breeding programs going. When in Kruger, I saw a
> giraffe covered with a pride of lions, there was blood and gore
> everywhere, and cars with kids lined up with binoculars. Lets get real about this.
>
> Watch this really excellent performance by one of the Copenhagen
> zookeepers who handled a really aggressive interview in a way that
> educates http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/02/11/093002.htm
>
> Idiot interviewer: "In London we would not show school children this
> process, we would protect them from it." Excellent professional
> response "Why protect them from real life?" Bravo!
>
> and read this:
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1604402_1015
> 1854271042133_614472380_n.jpg
>
> Mike
> On 2/11/2014 9:01 AM, Ken Kinman wrote:
> > Hi Jason, I certainly agree. It's a public relations disaster that should have been anticipated, especially cutting him up in a public setting after the public was already clearly upset about putting him down. The following news story is a good one from a Canadian perspective:
> > http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/giraffe-s-killing-in-copenhagen-reveals
> > -zoos-dark-culling-practices-1.2530562
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
> >> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:40:04 +0100
> >> From: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
> >> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
> >>
> >> I don?t think anybody (in this forum at least) is arguing against
> >> the logic that Marius was, genetically speaking, dispensable.
> >> However the emotional argument has been an unmitigated disaster:
> >>
> >> Google hits for Marius the Giraffe 110,000 Google hits for Giraffe
> >> conservation 6,920
> >>
> >> He even has a Wikipedia page! Not a little one mind you, but a
> >> detailed one started three days ago. The best bit is this: "Known for:
> >> Killed and fed to the lions". Now this is publicity money just
> >> can?t buy.
> >>
> >> The media coverage is even better. You?d think Copenhagen zoo is
> >> running a modern version of the Fabulous Gourmet Club. Those 200
> >> pounds of flesh are going to be awfully expensive. Geez. Couldn?t
> >> they plug the animal before giving it a name and buried it?
> >>
> >> I think an infusion of realpolitik in the whole affair would have
> >> been a better approach. Yes, couch nature enthusiasts may be
> >> ignorant, or emotional, or mushy-headed bleeding hearts, but that
> >> is the public, the ones that decides with their feet where to go
> >> for fun and ultimately where tax dollars go to. So once the giraffe
> >> became Marius The Giraffe and the euthanasia plan broke out in the
> >> news channels, salvage the situation somehow to avoid the backlash.
> >> But carving Melman and feeding it to Alex, well... it?s a tabloids dream.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> >
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:21:33 -0900
From: Derek Sikes <dssikes at alaska.edu>
Subject: [Taxacom] Specimen request (fresh or loaned pinned) -
Phlaeopterus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Omaliinae)
To: akentoNet-L at lists.uaf.edu, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "ECN-L at listserv.unl.edu"
<ECN-L at listserv.unl.edu>, Entomology Discussion List
<ENTOMO-L at listserv.uoguelph.ca>
Message-ID:
<CAFV61VE-Wsrp9U0BCw0bR8v2p2ibRf15nPrUxCPOjwSZ30cDrw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
All,
My MS student, Logan Mullen, is undertaking a revision of the genus Phlaeopterus and is seeking loans and/or freshly caught material. These beetles occur in Northwest North America.
A detailed posting with an image of a mounted specimen is at:
http://www.akentsoc.org/archives/638
Specimens can be loaned to me at the address below.
(Sorry for the cross-postings.)
Thanks!
Derek
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
Associate Professor of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
dssikes at alaska.edu
phone: 907-474-6278
FAX: 907-474-5469
University of Alaska Museum -
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:41:59 +0000
From: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Taxacom] Inbreeding, health, and evolution
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT148-W81D83CEA3D423E29201952C1920 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear All,
The whole debate over Marius the giraffe, got me thinking again about something I hadn't looked at in many years. Although the risks of inbreeding are real, especially when it is repeated sequentially over several generations, have those risks been overstated (especially in the first or second generation)? If the risk increases from 2% to 4% for first cousins mating, that is an increase of 100%. Yikes!!!??? But is 4% versus 2% something to getting overly excited about, especially in a non-human species like giraffes?
If Marius the giraffe posed an increased risk of health problems in his progeny that was 4% versus 2%, does that even justify eliminating him from breeding (much less killing him outright?). Geneticists might say that this is a 100% increase in risk, but are they statistically exaggerating the risks (not only to other researchers and the public at large, but perhaps in their own minds as well)?
And as those of us who study evolution of species, do we too often overlook how often species arose from the "founder effect"? Many have no doubt resulted from just a few individuals (or even just a single pregnant female) being isolated on an island or isolated area. And in spite of the obvious inbreeding, a new species is created and can even thrive. Why??? Because inbreeding can not only increase the frequency of bad genes, but sometimes can increase the frequency of extremely beneficial genes as well.
If we are to be open-minded scientists, shouldn't we be looking much harder at such potential benefits, and that the religious prohibitions against matings between third, second or even first cousins, may apply in certain cases, but not the extreme risk it is so often made out to be. In many cases, the risk may overall be neither particularly negative or positive. In which case, the preoccupation of geneticists relating to Marius and giraffe populations, may be overly exaggerated. We will never know in the case of Marius since they prejudged this healthy individual as a genetic risk (perhaps ultimately based on statistics which were exaggerated by some scientists, even though it may have not been exaggerated intentionally). Below is a weblink to just one single discussion of such unresolved scientific questions.
----------------------------Ken Kinman
http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:54:01 +0000
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Inbreeding, health, and evolution
To: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<DA4E4B8E9FF99A4A83FFF97C6669FDA999CDAA16 at ITS-MSXMBS4M.ad.unc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Until the last few centuries, most humans lived in small villages isolated considerably from others. Nearly everyone in the village was more-or-less closely related (1st, 2nd or 3rd cousins) and if you reproduced it was by mating with either a very close or moderately close relative. I know this from my own genealogy... :-)
I imagine that is even more true of giraffes -- giraffes mate with giraffes they encounter in their immediate vicinity, and those mates are very likely to be closish kin. Isn't that how we get to having 9 recognized (genetically differentiated) subspecies of Giraffa extant, each with its narrow and distinctive distribution? Inbreeding or linebreeding is part of how we get to allopatric differentiation of species and subspecies via local fixation of alleles -- albeit with the occasional nonviable or deformed result, which evolution "doesn't care much about".
But perhaps zoo populations are an even more extreme case, more like the Hapsburg royals of Europe -- I don't know...
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Kinman
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:42 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Inbreeding, health, and evolution
Dear All,
The whole debate over Marius the giraffe, got me thinking again about something I hadn't looked at in many years. Although the risks of inbreeding are real, especially when it is repeated sequentially over several generations, have those risks been overstated (especially in the first or second generation)? If the risk increases from 2% to 4% for first cousins mating, that is an increase of 100%. Yikes!!!??? But is 4% versus 2% something to getting overly excited about, especially in a non-human species like giraffes?
If Marius the giraffe posed an increased risk of health problems in his progeny that was 4% versus 2%, does that even justify eliminating him from breeding (much less killing him outright?). Geneticists might say that this is a 100% increase in risk, but are they statistically exaggerating the risks (not only to other researchers and the public at large, but perhaps in their own minds as well)?
And as those of us who study evolution of species, do we too often overlook how often species arose from the "founder effect"? Many have no doubt resulted from just a few individuals (or even just a single pregnant female) being isolated on an island or isolated area. And in spite of the obvious inbreeding, a new species is created and can even thrive. Why??? Because inbreeding can not only increase the frequency of bad genes, but sometimes can increase the frequency of extremely beneficial genes as well.
If we are to be open-minded scientists, shouldn't we be looking much harder at such potential benefits, and that the religious prohibitions against matings between third, second or even first cousins, may apply in certain cases, but not the extreme risk it is so often made out to be. In many cases, the risk may overall be neither particularly negative or positive. In which case, the preoccupation of geneticists relating to Marius and giraffe populations, may be overly exaggerated. We will never know in the case of Marius since they prejudged this healthy individual as a genetic risk (perhaps ultimately based on statistics which were exaggerated by some scientists, even though it may have not been exaggerated intentionally). Below is a weblink to just one single discussion of such unresolved scientific questions.
----------------------------Ken Kinman
http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:22:08 +1300
From: Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com>
Subject: [Taxacom] Fwd: Inbreeding, health, and evolution
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAF_uauBtm9R7osdtYKYUHpy-9OA9wCJHqNbN9B2aeYZ16nmkfw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Ken,
You support founder effect speciation, which was a key premise of modern synthesis biogeography. But here is what some geneticists have said about it (fom my 2012 book):
While many biogeographers have accepted the argument [Mayr on founder effect and 'genetic revolution'] from genetics, geneticists themselves have been less convinced. Tokeshi (1999) argued that the genetic founder effect does not seem to be an effective means of speciation and Nei (2002) cited 'one of the most important findings in evolutionary biology in recent years:
that speciation by the founder principle may not be very common after all'.
Orr (2005) wrote that despite the early popularity of the idea, 'it is difficult to point to unambiguous evidence for founder effect speciation, and the idea has grown controversial'. The experiments of Moya et al.
(1995) failed to corroborate predictions of founder effect speciation and subsequent studies have also found no evidence for it (Rundle et al., 1998, Mooers et al., 1999, McKinnon and Rundle, 2002, Rundle, 2003). Crow (2008) called the idea of genetic revolution 'vague and misguided' (see also Crow, 2009). Even in birds, founder effects 'may be unnecessary' (Grant, 2001, cf. Walsh et al., 2005). The passerine *Zosterops* is often cited as the classic case of a taxon that has evolved by founder speciation (Mayr and Diamond, 2001), yet a detailed study of clades in the south-west Pacific concluded that the focus on founder effects in this group 'has been overemphasized' (Clegg et al., 2002).
Florin (2001) described how 'The vicariance model of allopatric speciation has been repeatedly confirmed empirically, while peripatric [founder effect] speciation has suffered severe criticism for being both implausible and empirically unsupported'. In her own studies on flies she found 'no support for speciation through founder effects'. In recent years the debate has heated up and advocates of dispersal theory have found it necessary to publish an article stressing 'The reality and importance of founder speciation in evolution' (Templeton, 2008). This was a reply to Coyne and Orr's (2004: 401) conclusion that 'there is little evidence for founder effect speciation'. Coyne (1994) wrote that the idea 'has infected evolutionary biology with a plague of problematic work'.
Michael
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> The whole debate over Marius the giraffe, got me thinking
> again about something I hadn't looked at in many years. Although the
> risks of inbreeding are real, especially when it is repeated
> sequentially over several generations, have those risks been
> overstated (especially in the first or second generation)? If the
> risk increases from 2% to 4% for first cousins mating, that is an
> increase of 100%. Yikes!!!??? But is 4% versus 2% something to
> getting overly excited about, especially in a non-human species like giraffes?
> If Marius the giraffe posed an increased risk of health
> problems in his progeny that was 4% versus 2%, does that even justify
> eliminating him from breeding (much less killing him outright?).
> Geneticists might say that this is a 100% increase in risk, but are
> they statistically exaggerating the risks (not only to other
> researchers and the public at large, but perhaps in their own minds as well)?
> And as those of us who study evolution of species, do we too often
> overlook how often species arose from the "founder effect"? Many have no
> doubt resulted from just a few individuals (or even just a single
> pregnant
> female) being isolated on an island or isolated area. And in spite of
> the obvious inbreeding, a new species is created and can even thrive. Why???
> Because inbreeding can not only increase the frequency of bad genes,
> but sometimes can increase the frequency of extremely beneficial genes as well.
> If we are to be open-minded scientists, shouldn't we be looking
> much harder at such potential benefits, and that the religious
> prohibitions against matings between third, second or even first
> cousins, may apply in certain cases, but not the extreme risk it is so
> often made out to be. In many cases, the risk may overall be neither
> particularly negative or positive. In which case, the preoccupation
> of geneticists relating to Marius and giraffe populations, may be
> overly exaggerated. We will never know in the case of Marius since
> they prejudged this healthy individual as a genetic risk (perhaps
> ultimately based on statistics which were exaggerated by some
> scientists, even though it may have not been exaggerated
> intentionally). Below is a weblink to just one single discussion of such unresolved scientific questions.
> ----------------------------Ken Kinman
>
> http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cou
> sins-is-overstated-15809
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
--
Dunedin, New Zealand.
My recent books:
*Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics.* 2012. University of California Press, Berkeley. www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271968
*Biogeography of Australasia: A molecular analysis*. 2014. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. www.cambridge.org/9781107041028
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:59:54 -0800
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Killing of zoo giraffe to avoid inbreeding
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <52FB0DDA.9000909 at curtisclark.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 2014-02-10 4:45 PM, John Grehan wrote:
> Only thing I am still puzzled about is how did the zoo allows this
> particular giraffe to be produced by 'inbreeding' in the first place.
That was my question as well, but I read that Danish zoos allow animals to breed (rather than using contraceptives) for their physical and psychological well-being. In effect (according to the article), they are trading the deaths of unneeded offspring for better lives for all the animals in their care.
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
Biological Sciences +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 95, Issue 8
**************************************
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list