 | | mysticete | | I am a 27 year old PhD student who just finished his Master's at San Diego State (on right whales) and whose current research interests are questions related to the paleoecology, systematics, and evolution of pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses). However, I have a wide interest in other areas, including herps, birds, and paleontology in general. I hope readers come away from reading this blog with the realization that Nature is much more weird and wonderful than we give it credit. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | Help Save the UW Geology Museum |
|
| |
Hello again,
I have been rather busy (as per usual), and one of the things keeping me busy is the above issue. This month, the University of Wyoming released it's new budget, which included cutting off all funding for the UW Geology Museum. This amounted to a total savings of $80,000 out of something like 1.8 million which was cut, mostly by removing the two hired positions in the Museum (The director Brent Breithaupt and his secretary). The curator had been running the museum for almost 29 years, and was only 1.5 years away from early retirement. The Museum will officially close July 1st.
The museum receives approximately 30,000 visitors a year, many of them school children, and provides a important introduction to science for many of them. It's also one of the few museums even present in the state, and the only one where people can actually see Wyoming Dinosaurs; otherwise they have to travel to museums on the east coast. It is also an important teaching tool for college courses. There is a great collection of fossil material on display, including the famous "Big Al" skeletal mount, which has had discovery channel documentaries written about it, as well as a recent book. The Geology department is one of the feathers in the cap of the University of Wyoming, and has a world famous reputation, as well as being probably the biggest money earner for the foundation which manages UW fundraising. These cuts are a slap in the face for many of us in Geology.
Right now nothing short of an act of God will save the Museum from closing on July 1st, but we hope that by raising enough public attention we can finangle private donors to help support the museum (we need 2.5 million before the school will reconsider it's decision), or get the state legislature involved, either by making it a State Museum, or by allocating additional funds. If this occurs the museum will be able to reopen.
The best way people here can help is by signing the petition below
Save the University of Wyoming's Geology Museum!
or if people have time to write a letter to the list of addresses on the petition
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent forum posts for this blog: |
|
|
| |
|
|
| | What is a species? |
|
| |
 |
| Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast of North America are distinctly problematic for BSC, as some population can interbreed with one population, but not another |
|
|
 |
| The Indonesian Tiger, represented today solely by the Sumatran subspecies, is considered by some to be a radical PSC split |
|
|
In my last blog post I commented on the nature of cryptozoology, and the argument over the definition of what "new species" cryptozoology should be concerned with. However, there is a more elementary issue to consider.
What IS a species?
A simple question right? Not exactly. The nature of what constitutes a species, and what doesn't, has plagued biology since it's very foundation, a problem so difficult it was discussed at length in Darwin's seminal "On the Origin of Species"
The original definition of a species was built upon the typological beliefs of Linnaeus and early naturalists. Species were considered fixed and permanent; every species in existence was a special creation incapable of change. Because of this belief, even slight differences in appearance could result in a form being considered representative of a new species. Over time, even before Darwin's theory of natural selection was generated, scientists began to see the fallacy of this argument, as populations could vary over time and space. The traditional typological viewpoint fell to the wayside, and the less strict morphological concept rose to prominence. In principle, the morphological species concept looks at morphological distinctions between species to determine species limit, however when used correctly it also incorporates individual, ontogenetic (age), and sexual variation. However, this theory was still plagued with issues, and assumes that every species is clearly morphologically distinct. Another huge concern is where do we draw the line between different species. Some morphological differences occur along a gradient of change, and how "different" does a species have to be to be recognized as a separate species?
In the last century or so, the debate over what is a species has reached prominence, resulting in the creation of up to 25 different conceptions of a species. Most of these different conceptions are slight variants of the major two concepts, discussed below.
Perhaps the most famous and influential is the Biological Species Concept (BSC) of Ernst Mayr, a species concept which recognizes species as reproductively isolated units; i.e. a population of organisms is considered a species if they can successfully breed with one another and produce healthy offspring in the wild. Barriers to reproduction may include behavior (different songs, displays, reproductive timing), physical incompatibility (Reproductive anatomy which "doesn't" work with a different species, chromosome differences), and sterility or reduced vigor of offspring (i.e. the hybrid offspring either can't reproduce, or they themselves are less fit for the environment than their parents).
The BSC has been widely embraced by mammal and bird workers, however problems exist. In theory, it can be awfully difficult to test for in the wild, especially for secretive and small animals. Many animals and plants undergo types of reproduction, such as asexual (budding off the parent) or parthenogenesis (females can produce offspring without male fertilization) that don't allow testing under the BSC. It's also virtually impossible to use this concept with fossils. Finally, the BSC has a particular problem with allopatry.
Allopatry occurs where you have two populations which are geographically divided by a barrier (ocean, mountain, unsuitable habitat). Generally speaking, these two populations may have no contact with one another, have been separated for millions of years, and may have slight differences from one another. Should these populations be considered the same species? Using the BSC, it is almost impossible to test this in nature.
Problems like the above issues have in the last few decades stirred up controversy, and led to the creation of a new concept, the PSC (Phylogenetic species concept). The PSC relies not on testing of reproductive capabilities, but whether a group of organisms for a distinct separate evolutionary lineage. While BSC could be considered a conservative approach (often leading to "lumping" the recognition of one species for multiple forms), PSC tends to advocate the splitting off and recognition of new species. The PSC has become very popular with reptile and fish workers, which often have issues in applying the BSC to their study organisms. PSC has several advantages over BSC, in that it can deal with allopatric, fossil, and asexual reproducing species, and generally is much easier to test than BSC. The main issue with PSC is that it often lacks a clear and distinctive benchmark to differentiate species. The PSC normally incorporate DNA evidence to split a species, and there is no "agreed upon" difference in DNA to decide if something is a new species or not. This can lead to an unhealthy degree of personal bias in interpreting taxonomy.
At present, these two theories are still duking it out for supremacy in the scientific community. The PSC appears to be gaining ground in many areas of zoology, but it's still up for debate which theory will ultimately win out; my guess is a combination of the two. Why this long digression? Well we will get into this in the next installment, where we look at how different species "are discovered".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | What is a "cryptid" |
|
| |
As promised, here is the first installment of the new blog series I have been planning. And before we can delve any more into the ever changing world of taxonomy, maybe we should consider what we mean by the term cryptid.
For nearly as long as cryptozoology has existed, people have pretty much argued at what constitutes a cryptid. Even on this site, there has been substantial debate. Our ABC's (Alien Big Cats) cryptids? Most of the time they are believed to represent normal known species in an unexpected environment. What about mountain lion sightings east of the Mississippi? Historically they lived there, and at least some areas are within dispersing range?
Even the "experts" can't really decide what should constitute a cryptid. Darren Naish has discussed this in length in his blog entry "Monster Hunting? Well, no. No." Here are some general definitions that a google search provided me with.
The original most cited definition of course: "To give a precise definition of it, cryptozoology is the scientific study of animal forms, the existence of which is based only on testimonial or circumstantial evidence, or on material proof judged insufficient by some." from On the Track of Unknown Animals by Heuvelmans.
Roy Mackal: "Cryptozoology is the study and investigation of evidence for animals unexpected in time or place or in size or shape." from Karl Shuker's In Search of Prehistoric Survivors.
from Loren Coleman (http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.czmean.html) "From my discussions with Richard Greenwell (ISC Sec.) and Bernard Heuvelmans (ISC Pres), as well as with various directors on the ISC Board, the general feeling is that an important element in the study of hidden animals as envisioned in current cryptozoology is the input of local, native, explorer, and traveler traditions, sightings, tales, legends and folklore of the as-yet unverified animals. It is for this very reason that most, but not all, of the animals under pursuit are large ones..."
Chad Arment: (http://www.strangeark.com/cz.html) "...cryptozoology targets ethnoknown species. These are alleged animals with enough salience (observable characteristics) to be recognized as something distinctive or unknown, either by a native people group, or chance eyewitnesses. In some cases, a cryptid may be well-known, or may only have been reported a handful of times."
So while these definitions are certainly similar, they also have much different interpretations. Roy Mackal's definition cited could quite easily include OOPS (out of place animals), while the citation of Loren here would suggest excluding more "normal" animal discoveries, and focusing on the bizarre, such as bigfoot or lake monsters.
What do I believe? I favor the definition of Darren Naish in the previously mentioned article: "...cryptozoology should be defined as the study of animals that are known only from eyewitness or other anecdotal evidence - from sightings, photos, stories or accounts."
This definition would fit pretty much any undescribed species with reports, whether it be a odd rodent in a museum collection with missing data, to well known but undescribed birds and marine mammals, to even bigfoot. Out of place animals I believe also validly fall and fit in under this definition.
Note however the use of the term "should" in that latter most definition. In reality, most of those who admit to being "cryptozoologists" are only interested in the bizarre (and unlikely). While scientists make new discoveries all the time, most wouldn't consider themselves cryptozoologists, they would consider themselves mainstream scientists (mammalogists, herpetologists, ornithologists, etc). To date, since the creation of the term cryptozoology, very few if any of the predicted cryptids by cryptozoologists have been proven real.
To create an analogy which might offend some people, cryptozoologists are the unattractive unpopular kids at school, who ignore real dating possibilities (more plausible discoveries in zoology) in the hopes they will get a date with Heidi Klum ("bigfoot" ).
In addition, cryptozoology has been increasingly more closely bound to pseudoscience fields that most zoologists would rather not touch with a ten foot pole. Creation "science" is a good example of an area which has tried to bully to incorporate cryptozoology. Rods and extradimensional bigfoot are another example of pseudoscience increasingly becoming more evident in cryptozoology in the last few decades. And, finally, the hated profiteers, individuals in cryptozoology only concerned with milking dollars out of this endeavor, in the form of paid bigfoot expeditions, fake evidence, and book sales.
SO, we have a definite problem here. We have what cryptozoology currently IS, and what it should BE. How do we resolve this problem? In my mind, at current, it might not be resolvable. Cryptozoology as a name has lost serious credibility. Perhaps coinage of a new term is now needed. On the other hand, there is a young crop of serious scientists which are increasingly taking serious looks at cryptozoology. Darren Naish, Ben Roesch, and others are reviving interest in turning cryptozoology into a legitimate field.
For the sake of the next few blogs, I am going to specifically focus on Darren Naish's view of cryptozoology, as well as other "types" of new species. The next entry however will focus on a more elementary question. What exactly is a species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | New blog series: how to find a new species! |
|
| |
As some might have noticed, I definitely have been less active on the forum in recent months, and in some ways that is/was expected. I am currently entering my fourth semester as a PhD, and am currently buried in grant writing, writing my research proposal, and chemical analyses, all of which should get worse as the semester goes by...
However, I would like to be more active in blogging at least. I do have some good ideas to discuss in this format, I just need time.
So my current goal, and what I am going to attempt to do, is do a series of posts on "How to find a new species". These posts will NOT be focused on bigfoot, Nessie, or any of the classic cryptids, but will no doubt feature cameos, relevant bits of discussion, and examples from the celebrity cryptids. I will however go into the steps and processes one takes to "find" a new species, species concepts, animal distributions, the importance of collecting that body, how useful DNA really is, and other related issues. Expect a lot of examples from the bird world, and from the marine mammal world, as they are the animals I am most familiar with.
By the end of the weekend I hope to have the first entry up. Again...we will see how long I can continue to keep this up, but hopefully I can get a good chunk of this series done this semester
until then,
Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | seabirds, part 2 |
|
| |
Seabirds, part 2
In the last blog, I introduced the procellariiformes (shearwaters and petrels), and their relationship with cryptozoology and why as a group they make good candidates for rediscovery. Now I will go into how we can look for the most mysterious members of the group, given unlimited funding.
First, we need to consider where to look, and what species we should target. Of species currently considered extinct, but which have strong odds of still being around, we have two strong contenders; The Jamaican Petrel (Pterodroma caribbae) and the Guadalupe Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma macrodacyla), which bred off Baja California. Another area worth checking would be the South Pacific; the birdlife on many islands still remains poorly known, and the discovery of new breeding populations and even new species is not out of question. This gives us then three broad regions to survey.
How we look for these birds is another question. Land surveys for these species on breeding grounds raises all sort of issues. Most are nocturnal, and many use burrows. A very small relict population is thus likely to be missed. Also, we may not even really know WHERE to look. For instance, if the Jamaican Petrel is still around, it’s most likely a very small population, likely located in the rugged and difficult to survey interior of Jamaica, or alternatively an unknown colony may exist on some other Caribbean island. It would be hard, even with unlimited personal, to do a meaningful survey of potential breeding areas, and probably impossible to thoroughly check every South Pacific Island for potential unknown petrels, especially given that they petrels only frequent nesting sites during a small period of time while breeding, and the shear size of the region being surveyed.
So I would mainly focus on either sea transects near probable breeding areas. With my unlimited funding, I could afford to own, supply, and crew a small fleet of sea vessels, and then staff them with people skilled in seabird identification. By day the ships would split up and cruise through the region, focusing on high productive areas, or areas where previous concentrations of seabirds were spotted. At night they would anchor off probable breeding islands, with their lights on. Many petrels are attracted to the lights of vessels at night, and it may be possible to observe nocturnal migrants heading to breeding sites this way.
The benefit of searching for these birds is that even if I come up empty, I am liable to make many observations of known seabirds, which would improve our knowledge of the distribution of birds at sea. Over the course of the study other wildlife would also be observed, which may hold additional scientific interest. Finally, the opportunity would be present to survey many little known islands, which may reveal other new species or populations of land birds and reptiles, especially owls and nightjars, which remain poorly known over much of the Caribbean and South Pacific.
Overall, I think this is a sound strategy that will likely yield valuable new information on cryptid and endangered species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
