June 19, 200817 yr Actually, I was refering more to the state of my dissecting kit - it may look clean but its never actually been cleaned after dissections. So I'd imagine there are specks of cockroach, sea star and cane toad guts on it!So was I. But mine has also seen tapeworm, roundworm, rat, dog, cat, horse and the other domestic animals... some of which had been dead for several days, most were killed by drug overdose and badly diseased... So I kind of got a bad image when I read MB's post! This is not true - if pet/show budgies are less able to survive then natural selection will "make sure" they don't ruin the blood lines. At this stage (as in wild australian budgies are classified "least concern"), wild budgies are not at risk in anyway from pet budgies - there are way too many wild budgies.I disagree with "nature will fix it". Domesticated animals can ruin the natural bloodlines by slow dilution. So nature takes out the ones that won't survive well in one or two generations. But there are always those sneaky recessive genes, and quantitative genes that add up over time. Nature has to start again when you release these genes into the gene pool. I do agree that you need a certain number before that happens so wild budgies won't be greatly affected. But I still think it is a bad idea. There are also many highly successful captive breeding programs. Just because an animal is captive it isn't automatically inferior to it's wild counterparts. One of the other major reasons captive birds shouldn't be released is the spread of disease. This is especially true for restricted species which may not have many individuals remaining, a disease from cative birds could wipe out the entire populationYes... but captive breeding takes into account the effects of inbreeding deprression and genetic drift so they try to renew from the wild population if they can. When they can't they worry heaps about it. Budgies have been selected on physical traits not survival traits for years and years moving them towards homozygosity. The decreased variation can be disastrous in a small population. Edited June 19, 200817 yr by Chrysocome
June 19, 200817 yr Problem is pet breeders, they aren't always that good at breeding and DOC (Department of Conservation) can't rely on pet bred birds as they could be... not as good. They have captive breeding programs, but wildlife and conservation departments like to do a lot of genetic checks to make sure everything is good with their couples. I mean, the effect a pet one would have on a large population is minimal, but on a small population it could be horrendous. Tee hee me and Chryso posted at the same time, hence repetitive like answer Edited June 19, 200817 yr by Sailorwolf
June 19, 200817 yr I did not say that. I was using mules as an example, because they are a very well known hybrid. I personally have never heard that female ligers and tigons are fertile, but I have never done any research in that area. I haven't heard of any 2nd generation ligers and tigons. But the thing is that the definition of a species is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.It is the general thought that species cannot interbreed because they have different chromosome numbers, (there is some evidence against this though). There is also no evidence against it either. If humans lived alongside Neanderthals then it is most likely that interbreeding did occur. DNA is a very fragile molecule, it breaks down very easily, thus I would be surprised if they have any reliable DNA from over 25000 years ago. Remember chimpanzees share 98.5% of our DNA. So 1.5% makes us different from them. Neanderthals are even closer than that, so the gap would be even smaller. And one must also remember that in 25000 years our DNA would have changed significantly too. So Neanderthal DNA would be more different to our DNA today than it would have been 25000 years ago. So if humans were to interbreed with a Neanderthal their offspring would have a genetical difference to humans of half the gap between its parents. If the gap was this small it would be very difficult to tell what was human and what was not, especially when our species varies so greatly already. Perhaps if they survived they would now be considered a different species. Fossil evidence is sketchy for all animals. Fossilisation is a rare process. Think of how many different species there are which could have all been different versions of the same species, a youngster for example or even a different sex. I use the eclectus parrot here as an example. The only evidence you have is bones, dust and the occasional preserved skin or print. One has to remember that we are the only species in our genus, even our family. We would have had other very similar species and subspecies, that budded off of our phylogenetic tree, but never made it to current day, or were never fossilised. It is quite likely interbreeding happened there. Scientists can't do everything. As a vet student I am learning that there is a lot out there that we don't yet know or are waiting for technology to develop significantly to test and allow us to discover things. For instance we still can't effectively kill viruses. That doesn't mean much :hap: , not to men fighting and killing for territory and raping and pillaging. This didn't stop the Romans (and we all know how frisky they were back then!) and it doesn't stop the people that love their pets or animals just a little too much either. The interbreeding process didn't necessarily have to be loving for it to be successful. Behaviours and communication also didn't stop the galah and cockateil from producing a baby (it's on a post here somewhere) Who's to say neanderthals were dumb they may have been smarter than us (a lot of people wouldn't and don't like this idea, for some reason humans always have to be the best???? Too bad, dolphins are way smarter than us lol, they know not to even bother with work and stress, just play your whole life), but it is the theory that we killed them all, we may have had equal intelligence but we would have been more dangerous or ferocious than them. Apparently Neanderthals were very peaceful. Aaagh! I better get off this topic, I keep coming back with more to say. As you can tell, I am very interested in this subject :hap: Only female ligers and tigons are fertile, so they have to be bred with lions or tigers hence the "2nd generation" liger or tigon would not be 2nd generation liger/tigon, but possibly li-liger or ti-tigon. A bit like when they bred domestic cats with a different species of cat then bred the offspring back to a domestic cat. The similarities between neanderthals and us could just be the similarities we have in common with our common ancester, just like we share a lot of DNA with chimpanzees. Neanderthals were a different species from us (at least thats my taking on it). Just because similar species coexist does not mean they interbred. There would have been many buddings off! Like Homo floresiensis. "For instance we still can't effectively kill viruses." Well, it would be hard to kill them seeing as they are techniquely not living! Problem with humans is that we are so human-centric. We'll probably never know exactly how smart neanderthals were, I suppose people assume that because we survived, then we must be smarter. In fact, we probably out competed all the other species of "humans". "Too bad, dolphins are way smarter than us lol, they know not to even bother with work and stress, just play your whole life" Um...I highly doubt dolphins "play" all their lives...they would have died out by now if so. And stress is very important, without stress you can't survive. If you don't feel at least a bit stressed when you're being hunted then you're going to get eaten! It is a very interesting topic though we'll probably never know the "truth".
June 19, 200817 yr Author Actually Sailorwolf there is alot of use of restricted pet species by sanctuaries and zoos. For example Healesville Sanctuary regularly buys animals from pet sources, these include marsupials, birds and other natives species, they also regularly sell their own animals into pet homes.
June 19, 200817 yr I disagree with "nature will fix it". Domesticated animals can ruin the natural bloodlines by slow dilution. So nature takes out the ones that won't survive well in one or two generations. But there are always those sneaky recessive genes, and quantitative genes that add up over time. Nature has to start again when you release these genes into the gene pool. I do agree that you need a certain number before that happens so wild budgies won't be greatly affected. But I still think it is a bad idea. My hair is a sneaky recessive gene . Wild budgies do have "sneaky recessive genes" already but because it is often better in nature to not stand out from the crowd, the genes stay fairly well hidden. With pet budgies escaping, I'd be more worried about any disease they may introduce to the wild population. Though, escaped pet budgies would probably get eaten by the feral cat population before they got that far. Of course, where I live there is no wild budgie population and many pet and feral cats that would love to snack on an escaped budgie. "Yes... but captive breeding takes into account the effects of inbreeding deprression and genetic drift so they try to renew from the wild population if they can. When they can't they worry heaps about it. Budgies have been selected on physical traits not survival traits for years and years moving them towards homozygosity. The decreased variation can be disastrous in a small population." Hence why if all humans on earth were to suddenly drop dead without disadvantaging wild animals, all pet/show budgies would die out pretty quickly (even if they managed to escape their cages/avaries).
June 19, 200817 yr Neanderthals are classed as the same species as us. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Genus species subspecies We are: Homo sapiens sapiens The dolphin bit was a joke, dolphins don't tend to earn livings "Kill" is a colloquial term, I will replace it with "destroy" MB, unfortunately that is the case here. I was sad, because I really wanted a pet kakariki, and you are only allowed them if you keep them outside in an aviary in a natural situation. Edited June 21, 200817 yr by Elly
June 19, 200817 yr Neanderthals are classed as the same species as us.Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Genus species subspecies We are: Homo sapiens sapiens The dolphin bit was a joke, dolphins don't tend to earn livings "Kill" is a colloquial term, I will replace it with "destroy" Neanderthals can also be called: homo neanderthalensis. And a subspecies is only the same species if interbreeding can and does occur and it produces fertile, viable offspring. Really, how can they be the same species if they are called a subspecies and have a different name? Biology of cells is alright but biology of animals - yuck! I'll probably major in genetics and/or microbiology. Chemistry's not too bad...except for the maths in it! Edited June 21, 200817 yr by Elly
June 19, 200817 yr They don't have a different name Anyway I must be going to bed, it is freezing here.
June 19, 200817 yr Wow. Doesnt pay to go away for awhile. I come back and this topic has taken a whole new direction. Its nothing like its original form. Maybe these debates should be started in a new topic ??
June 19, 200817 yr They don't have a different name Anyway I must be going to bed, it is freezing here. Well it isn't really different.
June 19, 200817 yr Wow. Doesnt pay to go away for awhile. I come back and this topic has taken a whole new direction. Its nothing like its original form. Maybe these debates should be started in a new topic ?? I agree
June 19, 200817 yr Wow. Doesnt pay to go away for awhile. I come back and this topic has taken a whole new direction. Its nothing like its original form. Maybe these debates should be started in a new topic ?? Arr! No...lets just end it here. When you're talking about wild budgies - anything can happen!
