Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A DNA test has confirmed what zoologists, big-game hunters and aboriginal trackers in the far northern reaches of Canada have imagined for years: the first documented case of a hybrid grizzly-polar bear in the wild.

Roger Kuptana, an Inuit tracker from the Northwest Territories, suspected the American hunter he was guiding had shot a hybrid bear last month after noticing its white fur had brown patches and it had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly.

Territorial officials seized the creature's body and a DNA test from Wildlife Genetics International, a lab in British Columbia, has confirmed that the hybrid was born of a polar mother and grizzly father.

"It's something we've all known was theoretically possible because their habitats overlap a little bit and their breeding seasons overlap a little bit," said Ian Stirling, a polar bear biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton. "It's the first time it's known to have happened in the wild."

He said the first person to realize something was different about the bear -- shot and killed on the southern end of Banks Island in the Beaufort Sea -- was Kuptana, the guide.

"These guides know their animals and they recognized that there were a number of things that didn't look quite right for a polar bear," Stirling said. The bear's eyes were ringed with black, its face was slightly indented, it had a mild hump to its back and long claws.

Stirling said polar bears and grizzlies have been successfully paired in zoos and that their offspring are fertile, but there has been no documented case in the wild.

Kuptana, a guide from Sachs Harbour in the Northwest Territories, was tracking with Idaho big-game hunter Jim Martell, who had paid C$50,000 (US$45,500, or euro35,800), for a license to hunt polar bears.

The DNA results were good news for the 65-year-old hunter, who could have been fined or jailed for up to a year for shooting a grizzly. The Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources Department now intends to return the bear to Martell.

"It will be quite a trophy," Martell told the National Post newspaper last week, before the DNA results were in. He is now in Yellowknife for another hunt, this time with a permit to shoot a grizzly bear. Martell told the newspaper he has dubbed the hybrid creature a "polargrizz."

Stirling said others in his office have been tossing around in jest possible names for the hybrid: a "pizzly" or a "grolar bear." One colleague said they ought to call it "nanulak," combining the Inuit names for polar bear -- "nanuk" -- and grizzly bear, which is "aklak."

"He has a remarkable trophy from his perspective and from the perspective of this whole fraternity of people who like to go big-game hunting for trophies," said Stirling. When asked how he felt about the rare beast being killed, he said that Canada's polar bear hunt -- which runs from December through the end of May -- is done on a sustainable basis.

Colin Adjun, a wildlife officer in Kugluktuk on the northern mainland in western Nunavut, said he has heard stories before about an oddly colored bear cavorting with polars.

"It was a light chocolate color along with a couple of polar bears," Adjun said. Though people have talked about the possibility of a mix, "it hasn't happened in our area," he said.

Three years ago, a research team spotted a grizzly on uninhabited Melville Island, about 350 kilometers (220 miles) north of where Martell bagged his crossbreed.

Polar bear and grizzly territory also overlap in the Western Arctic around the Beaufort Sea, where the occasional grizzly is known to head onto the sea ice looking for food after emerging from hibernation. Some grizzly bears make it over the ice all the way to Banks Island and Victoria Island, where they have been spotted and shot before.

That might explain how a grizzly got to the region, but few can explain how it managed to get along with a polar bear mate long enough to produce offspring.

David Paetkau, a geneticist with Wildlife Genetics, said the hybrid bear could be an anomaly, but also a red flag that the bears are in danger.

Grizzlies are threatened; while polar bears are not considered endangered in Canada, scientists worry melting ice caps in the Arctic could soon have a detrimental impact. If they continue to mate, it would water down the breeds.

According to the National Wildlife Federation, there are about 1,200 grizzlies in the lower 48 United States, roughly 31,700 in Alaska, and 25,000 in Canada.

Stirling said there are about 24,000 polar bears in Canada, Greenland, Russia and Alaska.

[perdidochas]

Not evolution, just hybridization. I think some bear taxonomists are going to have to re-examine the relationship between the brown bears (one subspecies of which is the grizzly bear) and the polar bear.

[micfranklin]

Grizzlies and polar bear hybrids wouldn't surprise me much, seeing as how up in the north they share some similar territory.

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: Not evolution, just hybridization. I think some bear taxonomists are going to have to re-examine the relationship between the brown bears (one subspecies of which is the grizzly bear) and the polar bear.

Hybridization is the act of producing hybrids, right? So wouldn't a natural hybrid be a form of evolution of 2 species into a different species?

[perdidochas]

connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: Not evolution, just hybridization. I think some bear taxonomists are going to have to re-examine the relationship between the brown bears (one subspecies of which is the grizzly bear) and the polar bear.

Hybridization is the act of producing hybrids, right? So wouldn't a natural hybrid be a form of evolution of 2 species into a different species?

Actually, hybridization is the opposite. It indicates that two species had come from a common ancestor. A hybrid is almost anti-evolution, in that two separate species form a new species. I think that the bear biologists need to start seriously examining brown bear/polar bear genetics. At one time, European brown bears, Alaskan brown bears, and grizzly bears were thought to be three separate species. Now, we recognize them as one. Polar bears may be a part of that complex....

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: Not evolution, just hybridization. I think some bear taxonomists are going to have to re-examine the relationship between the brown bears (one subspecies of which is the grizzly bear) and the polar bear.

Hybridization is the act of producing hybrids, right? So wouldn't a natural hybrid be a form of evolution of 2 species into a different species?

Actually, hybridization is the opposite. It indicates that two species had come from a common ancestor. A hybrid is almost anti-evolution, in that two separate species form a new species. I think that the bear biologists need to start seriously examining brown bear/polar bear genetics. At one time, European brown bears, Alaskan brown bears, and grizzly bears were thought to be three separate species. Now, we recognize them as one. Polar bears may be a part of that complex....

Hm...interesting.
So it is sorta' like a one dimensional diamond: Start from a common point, branch out in 2 (for example) different directions, then coming back together....
So to naturally hybridize, you need a common genetic ancestor? It isn't possible to have a hybrid w/o common species ancestory?

[perdidochas]

connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: Not evolution, just hybridization. I think some bear taxonomists are going to have to re-examine the relationship between the brown bears (one subspecies of which is the grizzly bear) and the polar bear.

Hybridization is the act of producing hybrids, right? So wouldn't a natural hybrid be a form of evolution of 2 species into a different species?

Actually, hybridization is the opposite. It indicates that two species had come from a common ancestor. A hybrid is almost anti-evolution, in that two separate species form a new species. I think that the bear biologists need to start seriously examining brown bear/polar bear genetics. At one time, European brown bears, Alaskan brown bears, and grizzly bears were thought to be three separate species. Now, we recognize them as one. Polar bears may be a part of that complex....

Hm...interesting.
So it is sorta' like a one dimensional diamond: Start from a common point, branch out in 2 (for example) different directions, then coming back together....
So to naturally hybridize, you need a common genetic ancestor? It isn't possible to have a hybrid w/o common species ancestory?

Nope. In general, hybrids only occur between species in the same genus. Genetic similarity is required for hybridization.

[Addison]

Hybridization, if it produces viable offspring, can be noted as gene flow and speciation, thus a variation in Evolution. Evolution is the change in the genetic make up of a population over time. My town has 100 people with blue eyes and 200 with brown eyes. 50 years later, the town has 70 people with blue eyes and 230 people with brown eyes--thus evolution. Any form of hybridization is evolution in a population. Don't doubt it.

[perdidochas]

Addison wrote: Hybridization, if it produces viable offspring, can be noted as gene flow and speciation, thus a variation in Evolution. Evolution is the change in the genetic make up of a population over time. My town has 100 people with blue eyes and 200 with brown eyes. 50 years later, the town has 70 people with blue eyes and 230 people with brown eyes--thus evolution. Any form of hybridization is evolution in a population. Don't doubt it.

Well, not quite evolution, I would call that genetic drift.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Geez, some people here are a little confused I think.

This sounds the same as the case of dogs and wolves. For a long time, they were considered to be separate species, but in 1993, they became recognized as the same species because they can produce fertile offspring.

http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/annd2.htm

Scientifically a species is a category of living organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring with a different category of living organisms (another "species").

So there you go. Whatever anybody said, polar bears and grizzly bears have always been the same species, but because of behavioral differences they rarley mate. The fact that they look and behave differently means nothing; poodles and german shepards are the same species too.

An example of micro-evolution would be the divergence in appearance and behavior of polar and grizzly bears... but the convergence of the two sub-species is not evolution. Not even close.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Addison wrote: Hybridization, if it produces viable offspring, can be noted as gene flow and speciation, thus a variation in Evolution. Evolution is the change in the genetic make up of a population over time. My town has 100 people with blue eyes and 200 with brown eyes. 50 years later, the town has 70 people with blue eyes and 230 people with brown eyes--thus evolution. Any form of hybridization is evolution in a population. Don't doubt it.

Semantics. You should make the distinction between micro and macro-evolution, otherwise this could be confusing to someone who doesn't know much about evolution (like, obviously, Conner)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

Macroevolution is evolution resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.

[ieatfood]

Gryff1nd0r wrote:

Scientifically a species is a category of living organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring with a different category of living organisms (another "species").




actually the definition of the term "species" is kinda like the definition of the word "life"

no one has actually been able to pin it down
its a very mushy term and scientists kinda just make things up as they go
along--the whole taxonomy business is very subjective

"species" is an artificial term that humans have made up to classfy nature in a way that we can make sense of. But nature wasn't designed with the terms "species" "genus" or "family" in mind. Nature is what it is. It was never designed to be classified. Thus, it is not surprising that any attempt to precisely classify nature is not always 100% applicable.

all these terms that we hear being thrown around--micro vs macroevolution, genetic drifts and shifts--are all artificial human constructs

debating the exact definition of these is a waste of time, imho
we should just look at what's going on, and take it at face value, instead of attempting to force this phenomenon into an artificial classification.

[Gryff1nd0r]

ieatfood wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote:

Scientifically a species is a category of living organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring with a different category of living organisms (another "species").




actually the definition of the term "species" is kinda like the definition of the word "life"

no one has actually been able to pin it down
its a very mushy term and scientists kinda just make things up as they go
along--the whole taxonomy business is very subjective

"species" is an artificial term that humans have made up to classfy nature in a way that we can make sense of. But nature wasn't designed with the terms "species" "genus" or "family" in mind. Nature is what it is. It was never designed to be classified. Thus, it is not surprising that any attempt to precisely classify nature is not always 100% applicable.

all these terms that we hear being thrown around--micro vs macroevolution, genetic drifts and shifts--are all artificial human constructs

debating the exact definition of these is a waste of time, imho
we should just look at what's going on, and take it at face value, instead of attempting to force this phenomenon into an artificial classification.

But for classification purposes, the line must be drawn somewhere, and the bold statement I posted is currently the official definition of "species".

For people who get all confused by words like "species", I like to compare it to the word "planet". The word exists because we have to call those spheres orbiting the sun something, and the line was drawn at the tiny 9th planet Pluto. Many scientists feel that a great unjustice has been done to the recently discovered orbiting spheres past Pluto, because many of them are the same size or even bigger than Pluto, yet we do not count them as planets. Those scientists say that if those are not planets, then Pluto should have its planet-status stripped away, thus leaving us with only 8 planets, yet other scientists fiercely defend Pluto's planetness.

It is the stupidest, most pointless "scientific" debate ever, and somehow manages to cause confusion. Words matter, but sometimes people forget that we make up words to go with things, not the other way around. You shouldn't get confused just because reality doesn't fall into your dictionary definitions.

[connermt]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: Addison wrote: Hybridization, if it produces viable offspring, can be noted as gene flow and speciation, thus a variation in Evolution. Evolution is the change in the genetic make up of a population over time. My town has 100 people with blue eyes and 200 with brown eyes. 50 years later, the town has 70 people with blue eyes and 230 people with brown eyes--thus evolution. Any form of hybridization is evolution in a population. Don't doubt it.

Semantics. You should make the distinction between micro and macro-evolution, otherwise this could be confusing to someone who doesn't know much about evolution (like, obviously, Conner)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

Macroevolution is evolution resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.
Quote: ...to someone who doesn't know much about evolution (like, obviously, Conner)
Ouch
Nope, never claimed to be well versed in the theory of evolution more so than the basics.
Nonetheless, intersting ideas everyone put out on here!

[Gryff1nd0r]

connermt wrote:
Quote: ...to someone who doesn't know much about evolution (like, obviously, Conner)
Ouch


Hey, no offense meant or anything. I was just smacking Addison's hand for being rather misleading.

[connermt]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: connermt wrote:
Quote: ...to someone who doesn't know much about evolution (like, obviously, Conner)
Ouch


Hey, no offense meant or anything. I was just smacking Addison's hand for being rather misleading.

Eh... no biggie
8:)

[bob.appleyard]

Read in a friend's biology book that a species was a specimen in a museum somewhere. That's probably wrong, I'm not hot on biology.

[Gryff1nd0r]

bob.appleyard wrote: Read in a friend's biology book that a species was a specimen in a museum somewhere. That's probably wrong, I'm not hot on biology.

:? :-| :P :lol: :rotf:

No, you really are not.

[Addison]

Hmm, you're right. I was only fully familiar with the small punctuated equilibriums within microevolution. If I generalize microevolution into macroevolution--sorry.