Re-lumping of Common & GW Teal (1 Viewer)

[MJB]

Flippin heck will you lot lighten up? The original remark was obviously meant to be humorous, as was my use of nymphomania. There is no "I" in "team" but there is an "anal" in "analysis"! Stop overanalysing, guys. John

John,
Took your remarks as you intended, and always look forward to your contributions!

However, admonishment noted!
MJB

 

[Paul Mills]

Hi, I was taking what Mysticete said above, that the two specific terms are reserved for humans acting out of mental issues. Humans and bonobos are in the same order under a different genus, yet cannot possibly reproduce. Eiders and Goosander are in the same order under a different genus, but can reproduce. Is our classification system somewhat flawed and inconsistant?

Edit - Slippery slope!

 

[Farnboro John]

Humans and bonobos are in the same order under a different genus, yet cannot possibly reproduce.

Edit - Slippery slope!

And your evidence for this negative statement is.....?

Help I'm slipping......:eek!:

John

 

[birdboybowley]

...Humans and bonobos are in the same order under a different genus, yet cannot possibly reproduce...

I just saw a clip from Jeremy Kyle.....I beg to differ

(Although saying that is a smear on Bonobos everywhere I'm sure )

 

[Mysticete]

other than monophyly, there is no absolute criteria for separating different groups of species into different genera (or subfamilies, or families, or orders, etc). Also the ancestral condition for all organisms is capability to interbreed...creation of barriers to that interbreeding is a derived feature which doesn't always (usually?) evolve at the same rate as other traits. In the Eider example, while interbreeding happens, most of it probably takes place in artificial conditions. Certainly I have yet to hear of any significant hybrid zone or worry of one species hybridizing the other out of existence, like with say American Black Duck and Mallard, for instance.

 

[birdboybowley]

...or worry of one species hybridizing the other out of existence....

Wasn't that the 'science' behind the Ruddy Duck cull over here?

 

[MJB]

Wasn't that the 'science' behind the Ruddy Duck cull over here?

Yep, as in Spain where not only were male Ruddy Ducks out-competing male White-headed Ducks, but also second-generation hybrids were outcompeting male White-headed Ducks. Fortunately, before the Ruddy Duck could spread to the whole of the distribution of the White-headed Duck in Iberia, preventive measures were successful in limiting the effect.
MJB

 

[njlarsen]

Wasn't that the 'science' behind the Ruddy Duck cull over here?

I think the intent of the previous poster was limited to discussing Eider.

Niels

 

[Mysticete]

well...I was comparing the extent of hybridization with eider (different genera) against the occurrence of hybridization within the Mallard complex. The point being that hybridization is so vanishingly small between such really strange crosses that it probably has no meaningful biological impact in the long term.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Yep, as in Spain where not only were male Ruddy Ducks out-competing male White-headed Ducks, but also second-generation hybrids were outcompeting male White-headed Ducks. Fortunately, before the Ruddy Duck could spread to the whole of the distribution of the White-headed Duck in Iberia, preventive measures were successful in limiting the effect.

Well, extremists kill people, sometimes themselves because they believe enough they are right and they will end in paradise... we all know they are wrong.

Finally, science is also a kind of belief sometimes. We believe so much that our species-concept is perfect, than we are ready to kill those we are suppose to protect (birds), based on that. Actually, without this shameful culling of Ruddy Duck, it is possible that Ruddy Duck would have replaced the White-headed Duck population. White-headed Duck cannot longer survive without special human help/protection, but Ruddy Duck would have produced a healty population. May be it was a better solution? Only problem: in our actual point of view, we would have lost in biodiversity... in short term.


In 500.000 or 1 million of years, that population of Ruddy Duck would probably split in another one (in relation to American population); and we would have 2 Oxyura duck species again...

Now, the remains of White-headed Duck in Europe would possibly disappear when human will disappear himself (which is obviously soon), actual population being too weak to survive in long terme by its own. Just to say that, possibly, in culling Ruddy Ducks we decrease the long term biodiversity...

It is of course only a theory, but this is just to show how the beliefs are dangerous and can lead to wrong decision. Culling is always a wrong decision, because real life is more important that theories and concepts, as good as there are... Yes, real life is more important that theories, concept of beliefs...

 

[Farnboro John]

Culling is always a wrong decision, because real life is more important that theories and concepts, as good as there are... Yes, real life is more important that theories, concept of beliefs...

Actually there is nothing in your post that qualifies as a theory as a theory has to fit facts and all you retailed were opinions. Hypothesis is as close as you could claim to be to science.

BTW your statement that "culling is always a wrong decision" is only a belief, and there is plenty of empirical evidence to demonstrate that it is a belief held in the face of fact.

John

 

[Richard Klim]

Schollaert is a fundamentalist on this subject.

He states that White-headed Duck cannot survive without special human help/protection, but insists that we have no right or responsibility to help even though the species was threatened as a direct result of human carelessness. We shouldn't feel guilty - within a million years, there'll probably be a replacement species (Eurasian Ruddy Duck) as compensation. :eek!:

Similarly, he has asserted that endangered island-breeding seabirds should be abandoned to an early extinction by human-introduced rats and mice.

I long ago concluded that there's no point trying to argue against such a completely closed mind.

 

[GMK]

Fortunately, Richard, VS’s lunatic-fringe views don’t seem to cut much ice with many scientists or practicing conservationists, so he can pontificate all he likes here without it making a blind bit of difference.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Fortunately, Richard, VS’s lunatic-fringe views don’t seem to cut much ice with many scientists or practicing conservationists, so he can pontificate all he likes here without it making a blind bit of difference.

Actually, I'm very inspired. I think I should begin major a cross-continental introduction campaign, then sit around for a few thousand years and wait for the new species to come rolling into my life list...

 

[Farnboro John]

Schollaert is a fundamentalist on this subject.

He states that White-headed Duck cannot survive without special human help/protection, but insists that we have no right or responsibility to help even though the species was threatened as a direct result of human carelessness. We shouldn't feel guilty - within a million years, there'll probably be a replacement species (Eurasian Ruddy Duck) as compensation. :eek!:

Similarly, he has asserted that endangered island-breeding seabirds should be abandoned to an early extinction by human-introduced rats and mice.

I long ago concluded that there's no point trying to argue against such a completely closed mind.

Thanks Richard. I won't rise to the bait again.

John

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

When I started birding (1986), I was happy to do something good for nature which is destroyed by human, and to meet people concious that we should do something. That we should change our behaviour, and respecting life (not only human). When I was back with "normal" (non-naturalist) people, I felt a big difference. Naturalists were in advance on their time.

Funnily, at that time I found a birding book, written in French in 1898. Long time ago indeed. The guy was a "birdwatcher" and explained his "birding". One day, in cold winter, he was watching the blackbirds. Suddenly, a Great Grey Shrikes turned up and obviously threatened to catch a blackbird. The "birdwatcher" killed to shrike, in order to protect the blackbirds...


Now I still love birding, I'm happy to be professional but I see that naturalists have evolved very little compare to other people. Now, if I want to find people in advance on their time in term of life respect, I can find them (generally) in non-naturalists groups... amazing, isn't it?

Culling Ruddy Duck today is as bad as killing that Great Grey Shrike in 1898, and reasons are as obvious. But as I wouldn't probably be able to change the mind on that former birdwatcher, I cannot change yours. I just hoped you see one point: reasons for culling are disputable, as are mine not too (read carefully what I said), but we should not kill a whole population (genocide) based on disputable reasons... that's quite easy to understand.

 

[csanchez7]

Valery,

Do you really believe that "normal" non-naturalist individuals have a moral high ground in terms of respecting life? I find myself working around them at this point in my life.

I gave them a theoretical situation. If there was a large, flightless green parrot restricted only to an island off of New Zealand and predatory stoats somehow arrived on the island, would it be morally OK to eradicate the stoats? They said no -- that the parrot should be allowed to go "naturally" through predation by the stoats. Their reasoning is that eradicating the stoats is "cruel" while allowing the parrot to go extinct would be part of "evolution."

I believe your description of the "Great Grey Shrike" and the blackbird incident completely misses the point. The naturalist probably felt it "cruel" to allow the shrike to kill the blackbirds. A modern day naturalist would have no such qualms unless the blackbirds were part of a tiny population of which only a handful remained. For the modern day conservationist, species and population preservation are paramount over the needs of individual creatures. That does not mean that they are not capable of loving individual animals, but they see the world in terms of populations and evolutionary units through vast geological time. In that context, an individual life is not significant.

Carlos

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Hi Carlos,

I actually know many examples such the one you gave us, and it is a good example. But think all those paradoxes:
- We are unable to manage our own population, how would we be able to manage other's? It is like if Belarus decided to fight for democracy in Britain...
- We have the most destructive species in the world, so according to your theory where "an individual life is not significant", why aren't we culling humans?
- While we don't manage to organise our own ressources for 50 years, do you think we have the knowledge to manage evolution it long term? You say "they see the world in terms of populations and evolutionary units through vast geological time". Vast geological time. What is it for you? Go back in my Oxuyra example. It vast geological time, let's say 5 millions of years (it is not that long), do we have more chance that White-headed Duck has survived in Europe, or Ruddy? I bet on Ruddy but I admit it is difficult to know. No one knows.

Let me try a completely different point of view. We, naturalists, all know that situation of life on earth is terrible. Populations of 80% of wild species a crashing down locally or globally, some extinctions (such in frogs) even occur is proper, undisturbed habitats: they might due to pollution, climate changes otherand we have no control on that. And even when we clearly know the problem (habitat destruction, hunting, etc), most of time we have no means to really stop the problem: at best reduce the speed of destruction.

When we are passionate as we are, it is not acceptable. We wouldn't sleep knowing all that; in addition that we are all responsible: we pollute, we use ressources in conflict with natural habitat (even just to eat). So our mind (human is good in that) created a theory to make more confortable: if we manage to keep most of the species (conserve biodiversity), it is acceptable. Even if a bird that was abundant just survive with a tiny population in a national park, a nature reserve or even a zoo, we can sleep: biodiversity is there.

But this is a drop in the ocean, and the truth is not better with this theory: nice primary forest is still burnt, White-headed Duck is still hunted in central Asia, Fukushima is still polluting Pacific Ocean, pesticides are still spreading in ecosystems and poisoning frogs and birds, etc.

The true, real big problems for middle term future of much of life on earth are not solved with our attempt of managment. In opposite: while wildlife struggle to survie in our human-made world, naturalists add problems in poisoning crows, trapping rats and killing toads.

 

[Mysticete]

So you go from killing is wrong to a stance motivated by apathy?

 

[MJB]

So you go from killing is wrong to a stance motivated by apathy?

I could have got a Master's in Apathy, but I couldn't be bothered...
MJB:-O