Do hybridization occur in animals,if yes,Why does it take place ?
What is the purpose of Hybridization ?
are there any specific reasons for this !
Do hybridization occur in animals,if yes,Why does it take place ?
Of course, it happens practically if nothing prevents it, parents should be close enough genetically and morphologically and don’t have anything specific in ontogeny that can end with an aborted embryo. Reasons are different, sometimes males have high testosterone level enough to not take in mind female is not of their kind, sometimes youngs are imprinted on wrong species, sometimes mating rituals are not distinct enough for female to not accept the “wrong” male. Hybridisation is not that common in animals as they can’t be tetraploids or more -ploids which allows even not closely related plants to hybridise, so number of chromosomes should be close.
There’s no purpose in it as in anything in nature, it happens because it can.
You can read Wikipedia articles or practically any articles on these questions as they’re fundamental and require too many details and whole course of genetics.
It is spelled hybridization, not hybradisation.
will do the necessary correction
Members of one species can breed with each other. One species can gradually evolve into two different species. The ancestral condition is for all the individuals to interbreed. Perhaps the two species will evolve differences that prevent interbreeding. However, they may not. For example, maybe the two species live in different areas, so they don’t breed together. Therefore, it does not matter if they change in ways that prevent interbreeding (hybridization).
Therefore, hybridization usually doesn’t have a function (“purpose” for the organisms. It’s usually an accident resulting from shared ancestry.
Here is an example of hybridization:
This is NOT a abnormally colored Barn Swallow. This is a cross-genre Hybrid between Barn Swallow (Hirundo) and House Martin (Delichon) that is sometimes (rarely) found in Europe. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to correctly report this observation here in iNaturalist.
we spell it with an s, not an American zed ;~)
You mean, not an American zee. :)
Ah, okay, I can’t spell in American.
And I have forgotten how to spell in British English!
You need to add flag to the family asking to add one.
Hybridization occurs very often in animals, far more than we used to think it does. In the most basic form there are two varieties of it, hybridization that produce sterile offspring and hybridization that produces fertile offspring that can then continue to reproduce.
Both are common in animals, but, of course, the animals have to be closely related in the first place. That close evolutionary relationship is why it can happen. Obviously the species in question need to have overlapping ranges for it to happen in nature. Macaques are an example where it happens often. Long-tailed Macaques and Rhesus Macaques have different natural ranges, but they overlap a bit along the border. In that area hybrids are common, many of which are fertile hybrids. Other macaque species hybridize easily as well, and some langurs do too (with other langurs, not with macaques).
As with pretty much everything in nature there isn’t a “reason” or a “purpose”, it is something that just is. That said, hybridization can be a useful and effective way of incorporating evolutionary traits that other animals have evolved, and this can have an effect on survival of the population as a whole (positive or negative). The retention of the ability to hybridize may have a mild selection bias in order to facilitate gene transfer, allowing different, but related populations to share evolved traits.
The importance of gene transfer between populations is exemplified by the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer (genes moving between different species in a non-parent-child direction) is another thing that has been found to be of great evolutionary importance and is far more common than people thought in the past. There are a few different ways that this is done in nature, but viral transfer is the one people are most familiar with. In short a virus incorporates some of the genetic code of its host, and when it infects a different host it transfers a copy of that genetic code to the new host.
In humans we have firm record of hybridization in our own genes between us Neanderthals, Densiovans, and several other as of yet unidentified species, as well as nearly half of our DNA having viral origins, and therefore likely representing horizontal transfer. 8% of our DNA is known specifically to be viral in origin, and the 40% that is repeated codes is also thought to be viral in origin, although they’re still trying to figure the details out.
It’s not that old for a flag, I’m waiting for Oenanthe hybrid for like a year.
I’m still waiting for that fact to affect the GMO debate. The main difference between HGT and GMO is that HGT happens haphazardly, whereas GMO is planned and targeted. But the issue is so polarized, it is not possible to discuss pros and cons rationally.
One interesting fact I learned recently: babies genetically alter their mothers. As you know, a zygote gets half of its nuclear DNA from the mother, half from the father. What was not known until recently is that the developing baby also transfers some of that paternal DNA to the mother.
So then the question is whether the mother of a hybrid is still her original species, or is she, in some sense, also now a hybrid?
Mother is a chimera, those cells are not used in making of gametes of her, so there’s no practical reason to call her a hybrid.
It’s been part of the discussion since the it was first realized that it happened. Hasn’t been part of the simplified media based discussion, but once you get out of that massively dumbed down arena it’s been a common point to bring up in discussion concerning GMO.
The counter to it is often that even with horizontal gene transfer what’s transferred is generally not whole genomes and its still limited in scope (jellyfish DNA isn’t going to be finding its way into rabbits to give them a fluorescent trait, for example, whereas that’s something we have done).
Both sides of the GMO debate need to take a step back, listen to each other, understand what the actual underlying concerns and arguments are, and rejoin the conversation with a bit more empathy. There are good reasons to have concerns over GMO application, but the vast majority of the concerns expressed by anti-GMO people are either wrong or so badly phrased and miscommunicated due to hyperbole that the valid concerns get lost and dismissed in the noise.
The anti-GMO side needs to chill out and educate themselves better on the subject so that that don’t wind up acting like a bunch of idiots, and the pro GMO side needs to pay attention to valid concerns and recognize that ecosystems are complicated and there are often unforeseen knock-on effects.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.