Bull Trout

Chas Wade wrote:

JR wrote:
Chas Wade wrote:

The Deschutes in Oregon is the home of the Redsides rainbow. It's
actually a rainbow/cutthroat cross that developed long ago when there
was a landslide that blocked upstream migration on the Columbia.

What evidence is there for this?


I had a talk with the guy at the Redsides hatchery not too far from
Maupin last year. I was asking him about the cutthroat I'd caught at
Surf City (a run on the Deschutes), and he explained that it was
actually a Redside, but that some still show the cut on the throat. He
also explained that on the Deschutes the steelhead hatchery uses fresh
wild stock each year.

No, seriously, I mean real evidence. You seem to draw all sorts of
conclusions from talks with "a biologist" or "the guy at the hatchery."

JR

JR wrote:
No, seriously, I mean real evidence. You seem to draw all sorts of
conclusions from talks with "a biologist" or "the guy at the hatchery."


Listen asshole, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have any legal evidence.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

On 2004-02-06 15:21:48 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) said:

rw wrote in message
...
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/fishing_0601_04.html
According to this web site, even though the two species look very
similar, they actually are not as closely related as the similarity
suggests. It
That site points to research indicating they can breed and produce
fertile offspring. Sounds like a single species to me. (All other
"scientific" reasons for declaring a new species are, IMO, grounded
only in the scientist's desire for recognition and/or career advancement
;-)

Lions and tigers have been bred and produced fertile offspring. Would you
call them one species?

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote in message ...
On 2004-02-06 15:21:48 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) said:

Lions and tigers have been bred and produced fertile offspring. Would you
call them one species?

Assuming fertile offspring is the norm between the two, yes.

If biologists were consistent in applying their own "rules" about
what constitutes a species, such as physical, geographic, or
behavioral isolation, then we ought to have a multitude of human
species, and a multitude of dog species, and plenty of other
examples. The current use of these rules is "soft science" and
it bothers me.

Lately it seems like the readiness to declare new species is also
founded on political reasons -- mainly to bring the endangered
species act into play and "preserve" the environment. In NM we have
the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a very endangered species. Well we
had a state biologist talk at our FF club and I learned that there's
a Pecos river silvery minnow that is not endangered and that can
only be distinguished from the RG minnow by a delicate autopsy
and inspection of the vertabrae at the base of the skull. When I
asked why it is considered a different species, I was basically
talked down to as if I didn't understand science and no
reasonable person would even think that (they *are* geographically
isolated and have been for a while).

Jon.

On 2004-02-07 08:26:36 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) said:

rw wrote in message
...
On 2004-02-06 15:21:48 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) said:

Lions and tigers have been bred and produced fertile offspring. Would
you
call them one species?

Assuming fertile offspring is the norm between the two, yes.

Fortunately, the definition of "species" isn't left to armchair
taxonomists.

As Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker: "How painfully true is your remark that
no one has hardly the right to examine the question of species who has not
minutely described many."

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Jonathan Cook wrote:

rw wrote in message ...

On 2004-02-06 15:21:48 -0700, (Jonathan Cook) said:


Lions and tigers have been bred and produced fertile offspring. Would you
call them one species?


Assuming fertile offspring is the norm between the two, yes.

If biologists were consistent in applying their own "rules" about
what constitutes a species, such as physical, geographic, or
behavioral isolation, then we ought to have a multitude of human
species, and a multitude of dog species, and plenty of other
examples. The current use of these rules is "soft science" and
it bothers me.

Lately it seems like the readiness to declare new species is also
founded on political reasons -- mainly to bring the endangered
species act into play and "preserve" the environment. In NM we have
the Rio Grande silvery minnow, a very endangered species. Well we
had a state biologist talk at our FF club and I learned that there's
a Pecos river silvery minnow that is not endangered and that can
only be distinguished from the RG minnow by a delicate autopsy
and inspection of the vertabrae at the base of the skull. When I
asked why it is considered a different species, I was basically
talked down to as if I didn't understand science and no
reasonable person would even think that (they *are* geographically
isolated and have been for a while).


I used to accept your definition because it seemed to make the most
sense and seemed concrete and absolute. However, through reading and
thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it is as arbitrary
as any other definition. There are problems with any definition of a
species. Any definition of "species" is just an attempt to choose a
specific point on a continuum.

Although your definition may seem concrete on the surface, it too is
arbitrary and depends on your definition of "bred" and "fertile" and
when man's intervention is thrown into the mix, things get even more
complex.

With your definition, some of the choices that need to be made include:


Animals that will occasionally breed naturally in the wild

Animals that would breed naturally in the wild but never come into
contact because of physical barriers

Animals that could breed naturally in the wild but don't because of
behavioral differences

Animals that will breed only when confined together in captivity who in
the wild have contact but choose not to interact

Animals that will breed in captivity only when treated with hormones or
other types of manipulation

Animals that won't breed but will have fertile offspring through simple
artificial insemination

Animals that won't breed but will have fertile offspring through
artificial insemination with physical changes made such as a change in PH

Then we get into genetic manipulation

As man makes more technological advances, more and more levels will be
introduced that will need to be considered.

How the definition is to be used adds even more complexity. Is it being
used to describe the evolutionary process, explain genetic differences,
for political reason, etc.

Willi

On 2004-02-07 10:42:13 -0700, Willi said:

I used to accept your definition because it seemed to make the most sense
and seemed concrete and absolute. However, through reading and thinking
about it, I've come to the conclusion that it is as arbitrary as any other
definition. There are problems with any definition of a species. Any
definition of "species" is just an attempt to choose a specific point on a
continuum.

----------------------------------------------------

I both agree and don't agree, Willi. Species are the principal units of
evolution. While there's been a long history of debate about the definition
(the "species problem" in biology), few if any serious biologists would
deny that species are objective, concrete phenomena. This greatly
constrains the possible definitions of "species."

There is a spectrum of opinion. On the far right, so to speak, are people
like Jon who insist on the most rigid and absolute definiton -- if two
organisms can produce fertile offspring then they belong to one species.
This leads to absurdities, like the lions and tigers example.

On the left are the nominalists who argue that "species" is an arbitrary,
man-made concept. That is, IMO, the looney deconstructionist wing, who
argue from a political agenda. I don't take them seriously.

The truth is in the middle. Species are "real," but pinning them down with
a simple definition is hard.

(Somewhere off in Cloud Cuckoo Land are those who claim that species are
the immutable creations of God and that evolution doesn't exist.)

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:


The truth is in the middle. Species are "real," but pinning them down
with a simple definition is hard.

(Somewhere off in Cloud Cuckoo Land are those who claim that species are
the immutable creations of God and that evolution doesn't exist.)


Lots of problems occur when people have differing definitions. Hell, you
can't even with someone about something if the other person
defines the words(s) you're using in a different way - not that many of
ROFF's discussions don't fit into that category.

Willi

rw wrote:
On 2004-02-07 10:42:13 -0700, Willi said:

There is a spectrum of opinion. On the far right, so to speak, are
people
like Jon who insist on the most rigid and absolute definiton -- if two
organisms can produce fertile offspring then they belong to one
species.
This leads to absurdities, like the lions and tigers example.

Is that more absurd than the natural "in the wild" combination of a
Black lab and an Australian Shepard that produced our dog Emma? The
dogs are all the same species, Dachshund and Great Dane, ****su and
Chow.


On the left are the nominalists who argue that "species" is an
arbitrary,
man-made concept. That is, IMO, the looney deconstructionist wing, who
argue from a political agenda. I don't take them seriously.

They screw up enough that we probably need to take then seriously out
behind the woodshed. ;-)


The truth is in the middle. Species are "real," but pinning them down
with
a simple definition is hard.

Pardon the expression, but Amen.


Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

rw wrote in message ...

While there's been a long history of debate about the definition
(the "species problem" in biology), few if any serious biologists would
deny that species are objective, concrete phenomena. This greatly
constrains the possible definitions of "species."

There is a spectrum of opinion.

Debate and opinion, yet the definition is concrete and objective?
That's a non-sequiter for me.

On the far right, so to speak, are people
like Jon who insist on the most rigid and absolute definiton

Yep, I'm a Lumper with a capital L.

This leads to absurdities, like the lions and tigers example.

No more absurd than saying a chihuahua is the same species as a
great dane. As I understand it, it takes a good specialist to be
able to correctly identify a lion skeleton from a tiger skeleton.
Surface coloration and a little different hair growth is hardly
ground for speciation -- else we get back to my human and dog
examples. I'd be glad to declare them subspecies -- like cutts
are to rainbows, but I see no concrete scientific reason to say
they are true species.

The truth is in the middle. Species are "real," but pinning them down with
a simple definition is hard.

Ahh, but we have concrete and objective definitions, don't we?

Fortunately, the definition of "species" isn't left to armchair
taxonomists.

As Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker: "How painfully true is your remark that
no one has hardly the right to examine the question of species who has not
minutely described many."

Ahh yes, we must uphold the high priesthood of rationalism, the
ivory tower scientists. Us laity just can't grasp the reasoning
it takes to distinguish species. We should just blindy follow
and believe our priests, and if we did the world would be a much
better place. Everything they say is true -- how dare we question
it. If we do, they'll just laugh and call our ideas absurd, or
tell us not to try to be armchair priests.

Jon.