Post by exoticleps on Oct 21, 2013 4:52:22 GMT -8
Other than the link provided and cited, I cant find where anyone here said "hybrid species"- To me that is an oxymoron. I just googled the words together and no where in the results were the two words used together. With that, there is no definition of it given either.
If I understand you right though, you are saying that these self sustaining hybrids cannot backcross to either parent species (anymore), coining them a "hybrid species"? Im pretty sure one of the articles I read on the Papilio appalenchiensis stated they do backcross. Also according to Tuskes, Tuttle and Collins- pertaining to kasloensis, "gene exchange still occurs with euryalus" (another backcross)They have also stated that kasloensis is more in common with nominate Columbia and much work needs to be done yet with this subject, but they concluded that kasloensis is self sustaining and does not need constant exchange with either parents but does not say they do not. There does seem to be a lot of evidence pointing to the results, but the 3 authors DO NOT state any of the info given as fact as there is evidence that supports a number of ideas. This is why I respect them and their works. We cannot claim to have all the answers to everthing, and they are not about to risk their reputations, taking even a very good educated stab. Ideas and theory have been put forth but that is where they leave it. I don't know about you, but if I take the time to read or study something, I don't want to be given idea worded or portrayed as fact, Its one or the other and should be specified.
Im not sure how to comment on your last remark to be honest because of the misunderstanding on "hybrid species" but there are things we don't know yet, and they will take many many years to get closer to the answers. We should all be reminded that we are not in the days of Rothschild Fabricius, drury, Linnaeus and the likes that describing new species is not so obvious and easy today. We are at the point now we need to do some serious homework before jumping to conclusions. Im not about to say Im an expert on DNA and genetics, not even close, It is an area that is still advancing and rightfully so. Even then we may find that DNA is not as solid of evidence as we may hope it to be to giving us the end all answers we seek. We seem to accept quite easily that human physical difference and genetic difference varies greatly, yet we look at a butterfly or moth as it should look uniform and have uniform DNA across its range. Sure we can trace human DNA to hair, skin, eye color, origin etc. But if a post medial line, wing apex, color, size, etc. is out of place, even the smallest detail is out of place on a moth its 'gotta be a new species" Also to use ONLY DNA as a mean for answers is pretty elementary as DNA can still create as many questions as answers. The only place I can think of that this old school type approach is and still somewhat easier and obvious is the great unexplored depths of the ocean, where finding new life still abounds. (not saying it doesn't happen on land) but not to that extent and possibility. oh and of course outer space! throw 300 new deep ocean dwelling species at me or 300 newly found life forms in space and I'll buy it with little or no reserve.
I was also just thinking based on my last 2 posts, Bill's and the others that there is probably very many described and accepted species out there even in the past 100 years or so that should be looked at and at least challenged, Butterflies and moths. Its just impossible to keep track of all of them, which is why it seems Im targeting the Authors of Saturniidae. Some believe in splitting others don't, obviously I dont. like it or not we must all side somewhere eventually. There are certainly some tough calls out there today for both sides to consider. Past and present.
If I understand you right though, you are saying that these self sustaining hybrids cannot backcross to either parent species (anymore), coining them a "hybrid species"? Im pretty sure one of the articles I read on the Papilio appalenchiensis stated they do backcross. Also according to Tuskes, Tuttle and Collins- pertaining to kasloensis, "gene exchange still occurs with euryalus" (another backcross)They have also stated that kasloensis is more in common with nominate Columbia and much work needs to be done yet with this subject, but they concluded that kasloensis is self sustaining and does not need constant exchange with either parents but does not say they do not. There does seem to be a lot of evidence pointing to the results, but the 3 authors DO NOT state any of the info given as fact as there is evidence that supports a number of ideas. This is why I respect them and their works. We cannot claim to have all the answers to everthing, and they are not about to risk their reputations, taking even a very good educated stab. Ideas and theory have been put forth but that is where they leave it. I don't know about you, but if I take the time to read or study something, I don't want to be given idea worded or portrayed as fact, Its one or the other and should be specified.
Im not sure how to comment on your last remark to be honest because of the misunderstanding on "hybrid species" but there are things we don't know yet, and they will take many many years to get closer to the answers. We should all be reminded that we are not in the days of Rothschild Fabricius, drury, Linnaeus and the likes that describing new species is not so obvious and easy today. We are at the point now we need to do some serious homework before jumping to conclusions. Im not about to say Im an expert on DNA and genetics, not even close, It is an area that is still advancing and rightfully so. Even then we may find that DNA is not as solid of evidence as we may hope it to be to giving us the end all answers we seek. We seem to accept quite easily that human physical difference and genetic difference varies greatly, yet we look at a butterfly or moth as it should look uniform and have uniform DNA across its range. Sure we can trace human DNA to hair, skin, eye color, origin etc. But if a post medial line, wing apex, color, size, etc. is out of place, even the smallest detail is out of place on a moth its 'gotta be a new species" Also to use ONLY DNA as a mean for answers is pretty elementary as DNA can still create as many questions as answers. The only place I can think of that this old school type approach is and still somewhat easier and obvious is the great unexplored depths of the ocean, where finding new life still abounds. (not saying it doesn't happen on land) but not to that extent and possibility. oh and of course outer space! throw 300 new deep ocean dwelling species at me or 300 newly found life forms in space and I'll buy it with little or no reserve.
I was also just thinking based on my last 2 posts, Bill's and the others that there is probably very many described and accepted species out there even in the past 100 years or so that should be looked at and at least challenged, Butterflies and moths. Its just impossible to keep track of all of them, which is why it seems Im targeting the Authors of Saturniidae. Some believe in splitting others don't, obviously I dont. like it or not we must all side somewhere eventually. There are certainly some tough calls out there today for both sides to consider. Past and present.
