That for now I’ll probably stick to just having a big net cage in my garden to do the trials and after 1-2 years of experimenting I’ll probably contact an organization/s and enquire about reintroductions relating to this species and take it from there.
5 Likes
Since the allegorical Able and Cain, that is the first shepherds and farmers, humans have been degrading the natural wealth and beauty of the naturally rich and beautiful allegorical Eden. That is since the first agriculturalists, non-aboriginal humans have been causing the reduction of the biodiversity, and degradation of the natural beauty, of the world. Our rich and beautiful world has become ever less rich and beautiful since then. It started with what could be considered over-control of the animals, plants and the land, by those seeking more control of the food, and followed by more control of other people by those who controlled that food, followed by the monetary system becoming the primary tool of that control of other people. A global commercial culture then developed of people working for monetary wealth, which ultimately came at an ever greater expense to the natural wealth and beauty of the world. Before agriculture Homo sapiens was one more member of the natural community, and didn’t destroy its natural wealth and beauty, at least not so much more than one over-successful species might. From then on, everything that came to be as a result of the acts of non-aboriginal humans, and our culture, was defined as “unnatural”.
Today many of us yearn for more of the now lost natural wealth and beauty of our world. Some of us then want to bring back lost species. For those of us who want to do so, I would say one question is whether the methods we know from this culture that came out of the over-control of animals, plants, and people, would inadvertently harm “Mother Nature”. For example, if we are buying the species that we are using to reestablish a locally lost population, could the sellers have been somehow corrupted by wanting to sell those species into not giving the best advice about what will be good for that species, and for the natural community where the animal or plant material is being imported.
The question may also be how much control is too much control, and whether the limited knowledge we have about our infinitely complex natural community, and what is good for it, will lead us to help “Mother Nature”, or whether any of our well meaning efforts, would end up as ill advised, and ultimately not really help “Mother Nature” to recover her lost wealth and beauty, and possibly do more harm than good.
Regarding the purchase, and shipping, of animals to a location to repopulate that location with that species, I would say that the first mistake is to start with animals, rather than the plants that they eat, or that their prey animals eat. Moving relatively local, wild seed is less control than moving the animals that might potentially move in if they could find their preferred habitat plants where you started them. I would then advise against buying those plants, rather than going out yourself and collecting locally wild seed, or potentially a few plants, from a healthy population, to start with. You could also learn more about the plants and their habitat that way. Here is my story of a species that I helped to keep from disappearing from Seattle, where I live, for a second time, I don’t know what insect species it hosts, but I expect I helped some insect species with it. And my helping local butterflies by moving a bit of a key host plant to a sunny spot where the butterflies fly, a spot that had been covered with alien weeds that I now control.
5 Likes
I think it’s important now and will become more important to re-introduce native species to places where they have been wiped out. Consideration must be given to the possibility of introducing diseases or parasites, to using fairly local* genotypes, to getting permission from relevant land owners or agencies, and to having a plan that goes beyond opening the cage door to a possibly degraded habitat. Nonetheless, we’re going to have to do this. We’re also going to have to introduce species to areas closer to the poles than they live now, due to climate change.
- Fairly local – The native populations closest to places where a population went extinct are usually as small and inbred as the lost population became before disappearing. Each small population looses useful alleles, but they loose different useful alleles. Therefore, sourcing seeds only from the very closest population is a mistake. Sample several nearby small populations, and/or a not-too-far-away large population.
8 Likes
I agree wholeheartedly. While the commenters above have made some good points about not releasing things haphazardly where you don’t know the source, having worked in conservation I’ve also seen the flip side. Many conservation agencies are reluctant to mix populations even when there are only one or two individuals in each, which leads to artificial perpetuation of terribly inbred populations rather than actual restoration of a wild-reproducing one. Range extensions or even restoration to a part formerly occupied by a now-extinct variety is also frowned upon, even though it may be more suitable in the current and future climate than the historic range. Fortunately this attitude is starting to change, but it’s slow.
This is not to say it’s ok to move things around willy-nilly! There should always be careful consideration in things like this. But for extremely endangered species, these kind of reintroductions and translocations are going to be necessary (and already are in some cases) if they’re going to survive.
8 Likes
But, but… they’re distinct clades! (As in lineages.) What if they are actually cryptic species?
Then I for one do not care! If I cause a little “despeciation” by combining them, I can live with it.
3 Likes
I don’t know if this is a genuine question, or one meant to trigger me into a long rant, because either one is totally possible 
Anyway, the answer is that at least for the ones I’m thinking of, these are populations that were formerly physically much closer together if not literally contiguous, and had pollinating and fruit-feeding birds dispersing them around. So there is very little doubt that they formed a single population across at least each mountain range. And by “formerly” I mean within the past 1000 years at most, and likely within the past 200 years. Long enough for each population to lose different parts of the original genetic diversity (which shows up as differences in genetic cluster analysis - a good example of the saying “if you torture the data long enough it’ll tell you anything”), but not long enough for speciation.
2 Likes
@mothdragon
thx for starting this thread.
Depending what day it is and what I’m doing, for who and with who, I’ve been concerned or at least wondered about lots of interesting and contradictory aspects.
Ethics - well there’s ‘professional’ ethics - don’t do something to piss off other researchers, and there’s ethics as applied to the animal (and plant?).
Animal ethics. I’m involved in some reintros (some fail, some work), plus kidnapping & relocating insurance populations (ditto).
Utilitarianism might say that moving individuals, putting them in danger, is in the greater good because it might result in a bigger (or saving a) population.
In fact that’s what happens naturally. Plague rats (Rattus villosissimus) and spangled perch (Leiopotherapon unicolor) radiate like crazy in good years, only to die in the next drought.
For each individual, (except the ones that stay at home) it’s an almost certain death sentence. But for the species as a whole, some might eventually find a new home, just as the current one dries up.
Professional ethics.
For me to be counting things, documenting distribution etc to determine survival & breeding, and then to find that someone has been weeding, or somebody has introduced more of the predator I’m watching, makes my research invalid.
@cthawley
…without checking first with relevant authorities.
I have very little faith in ‘relevant authorities’. I’m sure we’ve all banged out heads on brick walls of ignorant bureaucrats and political manipulations. I certainly have tons of war stories. Unfortunately that situation promotes geurilla action, which by its nature is uncoordinated.
@jhbratton
[re]introductions are loved by politicians (quick results, good photo opportunities, don’t get in the way of industrial developments) and the conservation bodies are led by the money.
I agree.
And aesthetically, I guess I’m not keen on all your theme parks. But big picture, maybe you just gotta start somewhere - what’s the alternative? (apart from a world where you and I make the rules)
@jasonhernandez74
Knowing that my research is sentencing them to death would cause me to rethink even doing the research at all. “It matters to this one.”
I’ve struggled with that one a bit, but in the wild (depending on species), (see above, Animal ethics) 90% or 99.999999999% die without reproducing, so the several that I might kill are trivial.
And we really do need research. I didn’t really have to struggle with preserving individuals in museum collections - that’s the main venue for discovering new species, to fight back against developers & politicians.
@stewartwechsler
this is a bit off topic, but I must protest your
“…since the first agriculturalists, non-aboriginal humans have been causing the reduction of the biodiversity, and degradation of…”
For a start, definition of ‘aboriginal’ or ‘non-aboriginal’ is pretty subjective, based on who lst invaded who. Often those ‘aboriginal’ people superceeded some previous group. For the superceeded group, our ‘aboriginals’ are invaders, or ‘non-aboriginals’.
But I’m more concerned with the notion that problems started with agriculture. The progressive disappearance of megafauna on the heels of human invasion of Australia, the americas, Madagascar, New Zealand, various islands, all occurred without agriculture.
@sedgequeen
The native populations closest to places where a population went extinct are usually as small and inbred as the lost population became before disappearing. Each small population looses useful alleles, but they loose different useful alleles.
&
@kmagnacca
Many conservation agencies are reluctant to mix populations even when there are only one or two individuals in each, which leads to artificial perpetuation of terribly inbred populations rather than actual restoration of a wild-reproducing one.
Nice points. Recently I’ve been hearing more of such interbreeding, even between ‘species’, to ensure enough genetic diversity so at least some approximation of the original organism will survive.
@kmagnacca
may be more suitable in the current and future climate than the historic range.
In a re-veg (re-wild?) project. Looking at the next century of heating, we’re importing varieties from closer to the equator. Also, because of limited size, (several sq km), and lack of opportunity for birds to travel, we’re importing nectar plants that will provide year round feed. So according to some purists, not Kosher.
And the elephant in the room is that us ethical and concerned and dedicated environmentalists don’t have much effect anyway. In my talks I always manage to say “mining trumps farming trumps environment”. (Sorry, not THAT trump) I live in a state in which buffel grass is a declared weed, while the state across the border continues to help farmers spread it for cow food. And I despair at the frequency that I see organisms transported in the mud under cars & trucks, or in them. Or imported in ‘environmentally friendly’ firewood. And I sometimes wonder, as I drive 1000km to count trees, how much diesel I’m using, and how many small animals I run over.
Thanks all for the opportunity to rant / discuss. If you got this far, Whew!
3 Likes
Sounds like you did the right thing!
I was thinking about the people who dither and accomplish nothing for restoring plants because they fear maybe the source population for their seeds, etc., is not absolutely, completely appropriate. I mean, there are agencies that can’t re-establish a population because they think the populations in the next small watershed are “too far away”* and the species has been extirpated from the watershed they’re managing. Aaargh!! Come on people, sometimes you have to look carefully at the situation and then make a choice to do something! Even if it has a small chance of being wrong.
- Fish in the next watershed might be too far away, too different, too isolated from this one, but not the plants or the insects that can fly.
In my area of interest, the cryptic species issue come up, for example, with what people call “Festuca ovina” and plant on roadsides and in restoration projects everywhere in northern North America, thinking it is a native plant. However (1) Festuca ovina isn’t native in North America, despite what your out-of-date sources may say, (2) the plants they’re planting aren’t Festuca ovina anyway, and (3) they aren’t native species, either. I don’t usually think of this as a cryptic species issue because it’s pretty easy to tell what they’re planting from the natives they should be using, even driving by at 55 miles per hour, if they only knew how. I’ll admit that most members of the F. ovina complex are pretty cryptic, though. I suppose that if you have to check the leaf cross sections, you have to call the taxa cryptic.
4 Likes
One researcher’s hybrids of hybrids is another researcher’s panmictic population. It raises questions about the extent to which geographic isolation alone counts as a reproductive barrier for purposes of the species concept.
1 Like
The role of geographic isolation in treating things as species vs. subspecies or varieties is indeed under study, but it comes down to a matter of opinion. After all, if the populations in question are each other’s closest relatives, if they form a clade, where to draw the line is purely arbitrary. Opinion moves back and forth on a time scale of generations. I’ve seen it move one way and sometimes back during my life time. This does not give me confidence that current decisions are important (except the ones I make, of course).
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.