Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
If the local environment is in a state of stasis (unchanging) and the local fauna have evolved for thousands (millions) of years to exploit their respective niches to the fullest...
|
That's a nice big 'if' - in fact that's a massive 'if' - but where on earth are you going to find such a stable, unchanging environment? Certainly not in Australia, where the largest radiation in varanids has occurred. How would such a radiation occur if all of the monitors were so inbred as to reduce genetic diversity, anyway? Why aren't they all one, homogenous species? Perhaps they speciated ages ago, before developing this tendency to inbreed and it is just a massive coincidence that the popularity of monitors as pets is occuring at the end of monitor radiation, while they are at their most diverse in terms of numbers of species but are going through their stable, non-changing period? Or perhaps they have breeding patterns like every other animal on the planet and are still evolving?
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
And this is the very core as to why is a BIOLOGICAL NO-NO to release animals even 1 or 2 km from where they are collected. Ever wonder why all the books on reptile collecting suggest to release the animal(s) PRECISELY where they were found?
|
The reason it's a no no to release animals away from where they were caught is because there are differences between one locale and the other. That doesn't mean that all of the animals in one area are so inbred as to be genetically non-diverse, it just means that they share certain traits in common. If I caught a diamond python tomorrow, drove a few hours north or west and released it, I'd be releasing it into carpet python country. That's a clearly visible difference, but the same thing happens on a smaller scale closer in. It's still a big leap of faith to go from recognising that there are locale differences to saying that they inbreed intentionally. Within any locale there are still large numbers of individuals so that they needn't be inbred to all be similar in some regards.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
Nature is complicated. Saying that inbreeding is ALWAYS bad and serves no purpose because its based on HUMAN cultural influences is just as bad
|
I am not saying inbreeding is always bad because of human cultural issues with it, I'm saying that there is no evidence of any animal in nature that intentionally inbreeds for any reason, and I don't think monitors are going to be special in that regard, either. What happens in captivity is another story altogether and I have no issues with that. The current thread is about whether or not monitors specifically seek out siblings as mates.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff_Favelle
If genetic diversity was so great across the board, then why aren't all the scientists catching animals from different metapopulations and releasing them into others. More gene flow, more diversity, it would great!! Nope.
|
Genetic diversity is great, but the reason scientists don't do what you are suggesting is because they recognise that locales differ.
I'll give you an example: Sumatran tigers are on their way out. Last I heard there were fewer than 40 individuals left in the wild. It's starting to get to a point where loss in genetic diversity will cause long term issues with this race of tiger. No scientist would suggest capturing a few of the more common Bengal tigers and introducing them to Sumatra, for as much as it would introduce more genetic diversity it would destroy the integrity of the locale (in this instance a subspecies, but not all locale specific populations have differentiated to that point).
Linear Mode
