Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Devil's Hole Pupfish article

Started by Guest_HicksFish_* , Dec 19 2012 03:05 PM

Reply to this topic

13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_HicksFish_*

Guests

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

This article from wired.com was mentioned in the latest AKA (American Killifish Assoc.) newsletter:
http://www.wired.com...mutant-pupfish/
Things may not be looking too good for the Devil's Hole Pupfish. The small numbers seem to be creating a genetic bottleneck leading to “a high load of deleterious mutations”. The article explores the proposal that the only way to save the species may be to introduce a few of the related Ash Meadows Pupfish into the remaining population.

#2 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 19 December 2012 - 05:13 PM

Maybe... this population has always been small, as have many other killifish populations around the world, and if deleterious recessives were going to be a huge problem it would already have hit, in all likelihood. The habitat itself is poor and makes the wild ones look stunted; if you keep them in captivity they're bigger and "healthier" looking, similar to other Death Valley Cyprinodon species.

#3 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:02 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if a species greatest obstacle to survival is limited habitat, conservation efforts should focus on spreading the population around.

#4 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:52 AM

But if the habitat shapes the species, as is unusually true of the Devil's Hole Pupfish, you wind up with a different animal in other environments, and then the question arises, what are you conserving? This makes it way harder to conserve species, of course, because it's usually the habitat that's damaged sometimes beyond hope of restoration. That's why it's so important to save the habitat of other narrow endemic species like the Alabama Spring Pygmy Sunfish, because if the spring system needed by the species disappears, well, you have some kind of Elassoma left that will survive in aquaria, but it won't be the same thing. Probably the same thing is happening with many of the Mexican Goodeids. Like they say in the old country, "Earth First! Then we'll move out and destroy some other planets."

#5 Guest_Usil_*

Guests

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:01 PM

Like they say in the old country, "Earth First! Then we'll move out and destroy some other planets."

Let's not forget that this planet has a fine history of eliminating species all by itself.

Usil

#6 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:54 PM

But if the habitat shapes the species, as is unusually true of the Devil's Hole Pupfish, you wind up with a different animal in other environments, and then the question arises, what are you conserving? This makes it way harder to conserve species, of course, because it's usually the habitat that's damaged sometimes beyond hope of restoration. That's why it's so important to save the habitat of other narrow endemic species like the Alabama Spring Pygmy Sunfish, because if the spring system needed by the species disappears, well, you have some kind of Elassoma left that will survive in aquaria, but it won't be the same thing. Probably the same thing is happening with many of the Mexican Goodeids. Like they say in the old country, "Earth First! Then we'll move out and destroy some other planets."

In the case of the Mexican Goodeids there really isn't an alternative at this point, so we should just be grateful for what we did save. I don't look forward to saying the same thing about DH Pupfish, but I'd rather say that than goodbye forever.

#7 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:09 PM

"Let's not forget that this planet has a fine history of eliminating species all by itself." Sure, and humans as a natural product of the planet have done a bang-up job of accelerating such processes.

#8 Guest_don212_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 08:05 AM

if you save the species, it can be transplanted to a restored or discovered habitat

#9 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:49 AM

Yes, but the point is will it still be the same species, since fishes like this are very plastic in responding to an environment and quickly going through a series of small adaptations. Just because we want it to be the same species doesn't mean it will. As humans we're well on our way to playing god with a huge number of species simply because we've massively reorganized much of the earth's surface. That could change next week if, say, the Yellowstone caldera blows up, but for the moment we're doing a bang-up job of it.

#10 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:48 PM

Species? what's a species?

#11 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

The basis of biology, other than that, nothing...

#12 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

Save the genetic code. The rest is just expression.

#13 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:24 PM

Yes, gene expression is the name of the game and that's where most evolution takes places in the genome, along with processes like epigenetics. None of it's immutable and that's the problem.

#14 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:44 PM

Yes, gene expression is the name of the game and that's where most evolution takes places in the genome, along with processes like epigenetics. None of it's immutable and that's the problem.

It's not really a problem unless you choose to perceive it as such. Any one or many of multiple factors could enter into the equation. Knowing them ahead of time is generally not possible, unless you're one of the factors, and once they've occurred, it's probably too late to do anything about it. So i guess we'll just see.