Post an interesting species Topic

[Blorsal]

(08-21-2011 09:17 PM)SirZadaben Wrote:  I still disagree, it is a new species, like how golden labs and black labs are different, they both are labs, but one muttated to a different colour, thus they are a different species.

are you trolling me

[TreeStar]

(08-21-2011 09:32 PM)Gorsal Sr. Wrote:  

(08-21-2011 09:17 PM)SirZadaben Wrote:  I still disagree, it is a new species, like how golden labs and black labs are different, they both are labs, but one muttated to a different colour, thus they are a different species.

are you trolling me

I believe he's talking about golden retrievers.

BUT DISREGARDING THAT, it's a pretty shitty excuse to post mutations of things like a turtle with two heads.

[Sketchasaurus]

(08-21-2011 11:21 PM)Diogalesu Wrote:  

(08-21-2011 09:32 PM)Gorsal Sr. Wrote:  

(08-21-2011 09:17 PM)SirZadaben Wrote:  I still disagree, it is a new species, like how golden labs and black labs are different, they both are labs, but one muttated to a different colour, thus they are a different species.

are you trolling me

I believe he's talking about golden retrievers.

All breeds of domestic dogs are members of the same species, Canis lupus familiaris Regardless of their different shapes, sizes, and colors, they are all just variations of the same species. You wouldn't consider the different races of people different species from Homo sapiens so claiming animals(or people) with genetic mutations to be a different species is utterly flawed logic.

according to wikipedia: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring"

Also, a mutation is not a change in species; sure, mutation is a mechanism that may have played a part in evolution in some ways, but the notion that a small mutation instantly creates a new species is incorrect. Evolution is a process that takes thousands to millions of years to occur, and it's not the "changing of one thing to another" that many people think; it's more commonly held that many species branch out from a common ancestor. it's more of a branching out effect rather than a linear: animal A to animal B scenario.


Here's an animal that I find visually interesting: Sauropelta

[Gorsalami]

(08-21-2011 06:50 AM)Devicho Wrote:  
Happy Face Spider

[Woppet*]

CAUTION, SPOILER'D IMAGE IS INFACT, A WASP (Click to View)

[Chutzpar]

(08-21-2011 09:17 PM)SirZadaben Wrote:  I still disagree, it is a new species, like how golden labs and black labs are different, they both are labs, but one muttated to a different colour, thus they are a different species.

so what you're saying is that you don't understand evolution or speciation.

Here are the facts you are completely fuckin' mangling:
Evolution is indeed largely the result of random mutations (and selective pressures! Seriously read this shit up). If something is born with a mutation that gives it a significant advantage over other members of its species, then it's more likely to breed, and pass on the mutated genes, which leads to the frequency of those genes increasing, until that mutation may become a normal part of the species.

(Having two heads isn't really covered by that, since that's caused by improper separation of monozygotic twins, afaik? Someone might need to correct me on this, because I don't know if it's the same for animals which lay eggs, honestly)

A species is defined as a group of animals that will naturally breed together to produce fertile offspring. Variations within that species will not be considered a "new species" unless the mutated forms for whatever reason, stop breeding within the original gene pool.
That's called sympatric speciation (Seriously, read this up) and it's way more complicated than "This is a slightly different variation on this species, therefore it's a new one".

Talking about dogs as an example of mutations and evolution is pretty flawed, because dog breeds have been selectively bred to result in specific traits. It's not natural evolution at all.

e: and you don't get to "disagree". Science is not really a matter of opinion. Words mean things.

[Blorsal]

Well iirc Lions and Tigers do share some part of India, and Ligers can in fact reproduce...



I need to get some pics of cat hybrids, those are hella cool and theirs little known about hybridization.

[Chutzpar]

There have been no reported fertile males. They're not a new species.

[Blorsal]

(08-22-2011 12:36 AM)Tachikoma Wrote:  There have been no reported fertile males. They're not a new species.

According to Wild Cats of the World, Hellabrunn Zoo had a male Liger reproduce with a lioness and had offspring.


Hooded Pitohui


Gets its poison from the same source as poison dart frogs, some bug I can't remember.

[Chutzpar]

Hmm! That's literally the only source I can find that claims there's been any fertile males, so I'm remaining skeptical x:

[Blorsal]

I thought I heard from a few other sources, but when I rechecked yeah couldn't find them...

lets just forget that



Fennec Fox, the smallest of all Canids (including chihuahuas).

[Koopaul]

Science is the only thing I can't argue with. Sociology, sure, but not science.

[Blorsal]

Secretary-bird

just look at that thing

[Devicho]

Orchid Mantis

Mantises are pretty awesome.

[Chutzpar]

(08-22-2011 02:14 AM)Koopaul Wrote:  Science is the only thing I can't argue with. Sociology, sure, but not science.

"I value fields that are grounded in empirical evidence. Except this one."

---

http://www.livescience.com/15360-crested...kills.html


"This is the first mammal that is borrowing a deadly poison from a plant and slathering it on itself without dying," said study researcher Jonathan Kingdon, of Oxford University in England. "This is an extraordinary thing to have evolved."

OH and on the subject of mantises

jazz hands.
I only recently found out that female mantises have such lovely wings x: