Having just learnt about the Grants in community ecology class, who famously continued Darwin's work in studying the finches of Galapagos Islands for some 36 years, I was bemused and surprised when WIRED reported a new species discovered by them yesterday. Topics brought up in community ecology class keep popping up in the news! Read about it here.

Source: Wired.com

So what is it with all this species talk? Here's some quick background.

The systems of classification we have today in biological science for living organisms have many levels. They start from Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species. Of all of these levels, note that the only "natural" classification is species - why? Because we recognise the individual for itself, and the species is a fundamental unit that is not grouped together with other individuals based on a set of characteristics that people think is important, because this can be flawed. Note that classifications are a human construct after all, just as the theoretical science we make our rules in the world by are simply hypotheses that have yet to be proven wrong.

Source: Wikipedia
Scientists in the past first started classifying animals much like how a 5 year old kid naturally learns to put things together. If they look like the same thing, it makes sense that they are the same kind of thing. Fishes look like fishes, and insects look like insects. We call this morphology (structure, or external form). Are things really that simple though?

Source: Corbets.

As the earth aged and thousands and millions of years passed, species on different continents adapted to the different conditions present there. In certain parts of the world however, this set of abiotic conditions (things like amount of moisture, air, temperature, nutrients, etc) were similar - and living organisms living by this same set of conditions may have adapted to this set of conditions, growing to have the same kind of external form, and thus looking the same. We call this convergent evolution. Click here for more examples of convergent evolution.

Source: Ivana Stehlik's lecture notes for Environmental Biology, University of Toronto.

Lineage-wise though, they may come from extremely different ancestors. Cacti are one example. Desert conditions are so harsh that only a certain set of characteristics have prevailed, and plants from different families (DNA-wise) in different deserts have the same characteristics: needle-like leaves, succulence, deep roots, etc. On the other hand, two individuals that look completely different can be the same species: a few cases in point are ants and termites. Ever see how different soldier ants are from worker ants? And look at the queen!

 

Soldier termite with big bulbous red head; alate reproductive is whitish in colour, worker termites are the rest in dull grey and cream colour. Picture by Nuwan, from my collection (for more termites, see my page here)

Okay, so we know morphology isn't enough. So what exactly is a species? This kinda seems pretty clear cut, doesn't
it? Well it actually is kind of fuzzy - though most scientists agree on
using the Ernst Mayr biological species concept:

"Groups of populations that can actually or potentially exchange genes with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Why is that unclear? It sounds like its pretty clear-cut. Theoretically, that is. Realistically, its difficult to actually determine if individuals from two populations are capable of reproducing together and producing viable offspring. Take for example some common birds of Singapore. To test with certainty if the mynahs, crows, sparrows and pigeons are different species (setting aside structural differences), one would have to place them together in a setting and allow for enough time to see if they would breed together. If they breed and produce infertile offspring, it's ruled out. But if they do produce viable offspring, one would then have to follow the case back to the wild, to see if their territories overlap enough that copulation is possible, and then observe if breeding between the two occurs. Extrapolate that to birds of a country. To test this with all the birds of a country, would be a nightmare. Read more about other species concepts here.

It's not so clear after all, and there are many other things to take into account. What about organisms that breed asexually, such as fungi and aphids? Or living things that hybridise? The picture gets more fuzzy as we consider more things. Remember though, that this is a human construct, and we can keep coming up definitions that fit best as they can; sometimes they don't fit for all cases, and we may need separate definitions for others. It's not made in stone! For a quick, easily absorbed lesson in speciation, go here (recommended!).

I know, I know. Many weeks have passed since the last post, and its mostly due to converting all of my time to studying, researching or re-activating my social life now and then with friends. So here's a quick one. To save animals, put a price on them - its an article on a radical idea, which is actually so crazy its the kind of idea that gets people (especially me) thinking and puts my mind out of the box so I can actually think radically too. Read it here. I love this kind of stuff. Not that I agree with the idea, I think there's some serious flaws with it, but I like that the idea makes me think. Hope it does for you too. Having taken classes on Tropical Conservation, many issues have also been brought up with regards to conservation. Just a quick post on certain concepts and ideas off the top of my head that have to be kept in mind when we are talking about conservation and leading lives with conservation at our core. There is an article called "When swordfish conservationists eat swordfish". It's a good read. You might be able to get it by googling. So the general idea is when a conservationist doesn't practice what he preaches, and doesn't do what he advocates - its like an environmental activist who pollutes the earth and doesn't bother to save water or electricity. Think about your footprint - calculate it with an online calculator. Think about your lifestyle, and if and how that is aligned with what you believe in. Next. That conservation is not a pure subject, like many other things in the world. Pure meaning it only consists of one category of subject, of course. Call it science, call it social science, call it environmental or even philosophy related. It is all of, and much more than these things. Keep in mind that conservation, without a social, environmental, political component, cannot work. It's interesting. People have to have their basic needs taken care of before they can move on to other things. It's Maslow's pyramid, period. Culture, environmental activists, choices even, only come when we have our basic necessities met. So don't question humanity's selfishness in wanting to secure our future first - the thing you should question is why we think that economics should be mutually exclusive with the environment? We are slowly being proven wrong on that one, and that is, I believe, the way to go. Después. Zoos are temporary. They are not an alternate habitat, they are conservation centres, and Noah's Arks at best. Look, no one's disputing that they are great for education here. They are fantastic tools - but that's all they are. A tool, a mechanism for education and awareness, but never, ever a replacement for what belongs in our natural environment, for what has been there before we removed them from it with our influence. Nächster. Cryo banks and seed banks, where sperm and egg of animals and seeds of plants are stored to 'secure' its future are great ideas. But like zoos, its dangerous if we think they're going to be our future. They can't be. Think: if animals cannot mate naturally any more, and we have to do fertilisation for them, is that natural? If an animal's habitat is no longer around, and cannot be resurrected, so what if we can artificially produce more of these animals? Berikutnya. Beware of crunching numbers. Telling the public that we have 100 hectares (ha) of land designated for nature is only meaningful if that land is not fragmented. If they are taking 100 patches of 1 ha land 'polka-dots' and adding them together to produce 100 ha of land, that's not meaningful at all. It's blips of land that not only reduce the integrity of the land, it also brings in accessibility by humans which can mean poaching, besides having the famous edge effect that alters conditions of the fragment such that environment of the fragment starts to degrade. Made small enough, don't be surprised if it degrades to nothingness. All while we say we have 100 ha of land set aside of nature. 其次. Again, like how conservation is a weaving of many subjects and many characters, the change in food chains/webs, ecosystems and environment is compounded. Think about what animal/plant is affected. How its life history is changed. Does it migrate? What breeding pattern does it have? What does it eat, and what does it get eaten by? For example. Parasites have primary, and secondary hosts. Bacteria, they're bad or good in our eyes, just harmful or not to the animal. Migratory birds and fishes, and their prey, be it crustaceans or caterpillars. Climate changes and pollution affecting breeding times, seasons, development - mozzies breed faster or slower, some frogs and molluscs are starting to have pseudo penises and weird number of limbs and development. Lastly. Though I'm not done talking about it, I'll continue another day. Don't let all of this frighten you into a state of inertia and shock. Instead, take this as a sign, a challenge for us, the current generation to rise up to and take action. What's most important, is that we take action. We can sit on our butts the whole day and talk all about the climate change and how animals are dying around the world - but without action, nothing really will get done. Start simple. Use less things. Then you need to reuse less of them, and recycle even less of them. So start with reducing. Spread. Blog. Talk to people. Write to your MP, if you're in Singapore, and your mayor or city council if you're elsewhere. Highlight issues you think are pertinent, important. Learn more about whatever it is YOU are interested in. You don't have to be interested in the environment just because everyone else is - go find out about what's interesting to you. Knowing about the environment is good - learning about something you have  a passion for, is sustainable. Mebbe you like amphibians. I met a 13 year old girl today who likes rodents, and learnt only today that squirrels, beavers and capibara, saying 'Cooool' as she heard it. We have a choice. Always. And putting yourself in the seat of choice and responsibility means you have power - it means you are the driver, and you decide today, right now, where we go. Your actions affect someone and something else. You are powerful. You choose. Believe that, and do something good with it. The world will be better off. (: