Xref: utzoo sci.environment:5754 sci.bio:2862
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ig!bionet!agate!shelby!unix!garth!phipps
From: phipps@garth.UUCP (Clay Phipps)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.bio
Subject: Condors & Otters & Cows, Oh My ! (Re: Bringing Back Extinct Species)
Message-ID: <151@garth.UUCP>
Date: 6 Apr 90 04:19:15 GMT
References: <8696@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <6451@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Reply-To: phipps@garth.UUCP (Clay Phipps)
Organization: Intergraph APD, in semiarid Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 82

[The following thread has been abducted from "sci.environment" and
crossposted in "sci.bio"; it seems to belong more there than here.]

In article <6451@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>,
oconnordm@CRD.GE.COM (Dennis M. O'Connor) wrote:
>In [an earlier article], vac@sam (Vincent Cate) wrote:
>]
>] frozen woolly mammoths [have been found] in remarkable condition ... 
>] the DNA is intact in many of the cells.  
>] The idea is ... to clone a mammoth. ...

I'd be more interested in Georg Steller's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas):
an inhabitant of North Pacific waters until 1 or 2 centuries ago,
as long as we're fantasizing about bringing extinct animals back.
It's simply not possible to "restore" the Pacific coast of the U.S.
to its hypothetical prehuman state without including that critter.
And *please* leave that "greatest white shark" (Carcharodon megalodon) 
DNA alone wherever you found it :-).

>[...] mammoth cloning [...] can't bring back the species 
>unless clones from many different ex-mammoths could be made.  
>Even a dozen individuals wouldbe too few.
>The same applies to endangered species. 
>Once the gene pool is reduced to a few dozen individuals (living or dead), 
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>it becomes nearly impossible to really resurrect the species.

Then I suppose that you have already given up on the California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus).

As of March 23, there were only 33 California condors known still alive,
and 2 fertile eggs known--on this entire planet, all in captivity.
Those counts were provided by a biologist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) Ventura Endangered Species Recovery Office (VESRO),
which oversees the California condor recovery program.

The Andean condor, whose appearance is similar to the California condor,
is neither the same species nor even in the same genus. 

>Cheetahs provide an example of this from nature. 
>Theory has it that [the world-wide(?) cheetah population was] 
>reduced to 200 or so individuals about 10,000 years ago. 
>As a result, cheetahs will always teeter on the brink of extinction : 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would be a far greater service to this "science" news-group to present 
data on the world-wide distribution and status (esp. with regard to rate 
of change) of populations of cheetahs world-wide, than to offer a statement
that has the distinct ring of long-term fund-raising rhetoric.

The phrase "teeter on the brink of extinction" is sometiomes applied
to sea otters in California, who were reduced to a guesstimated 50
individuals sometime early in this century.  A systematic survey of
their population in Spring 1989 produced a *count* of 1864 individuals
(source: USFWS).  The Spring 1990 survey should produce a count 
approximately the same as the year A.D., and could break 2000 (source: me; 
I've followed those surveys very closely over the last few years), 
if recent observed population growth rates continue.
I posted more complete data on the counts and growth rates back in July.

>they are so close to genetically identical, 
>they lack the diversity to survive sudden ecological change.

My understanding is that loss of viable habitat (especially important 
because of the consequent reduction in carrying capacity) is a far greater 
threat than anything else to the survival of most animal populations
(is there significant disagreement on this ?).  There are notable exceptions:
the fundamentally nonrenewable poaching of African elephants for their ivory.

I'm not convinced that the cheetahs are *practically* any worse off 
than a lot of other animals retaining much greater genetic diversity.
Cheetahs could certainly be hit hard by a sudden or cyclic disease, but 
I *suspect* that encroachment by Homo sapiens is their biggest problem now.
Can someone elaborate on the world-wide plight of cheetahs ?
-- 
[The foregoing may or may not represent the position, if any, of my employer, ]
[ who is identified solely to allow the reader to account for personal biases.]
[Besides, this article was written and posted way after normal business hours.]
                                              
Clay Phipps 
Intergraph APD: 2400#4 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 415/852-2327
UseNet (Intergraph internal): ingr!apd!phipps
UseNet (external): {apple,pyramid,sri-unix}!garth!phipps        EcoNet: cphipps