New species of tapir discovered in Amazon

[The Shrike]

My wife is going to HATE this! She already has a rule "No comparison specimens in the house". If I started pulling out references pointing out the importance of dinner leftovers to science, she may actually stab me.

No worries. I'm pretty sure those dudes eating tapir have outdoor kitchens.

 

[Garrison]

Man they'll just hire anyone or anything to work in those warehouses...

 

[xtifr]

Of course, the biggest difference between this and Bigfoot (the same difference as with several other recent discoveries), is that this critter was hiding out in populations of closely related and very similar looking critters. Critters with similar bones, similar fur, similar scat, etc.

Where's the other species of North American 8-foot-tall primates for Bigfoot to hide amongst? Where are the any bones/fur/scat/etc. to be misidentified?

 

[jerrywayne]

Big difference in 1912...

What's that? Oh it's another South American tapir skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.

What's that? Oh it's a giant hairy North American ape skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.

Perfecto.

 

[The Shrike]

I'm just making a random post here so this thread bumps to the top of the pile so folks can discuss tapirs in this thread as opposed to in a bigfoot thread. Carry on.

 

[Drewbot]

If you want to divert Bigfooters to this thread, then throw 'Bigfoot' in the tag area at the top.

Jeff Meldrum posted a link to the article about the discovery on his Facebook page. He wanted us to notice the reference to utilizing local knowledge to classify this species.

 

[jaydeehess]

"Those slightly different looking tapir? Yeah we kill and eat them all the time."

Versus

Legend of a Sasquatch. " Kill and eat them? No, we never do that"

 

[AcesHigh]

But obviously there is a huge difference. The locals would have been happy and able to provide a tapir body at any time (they probably eat them).

never heard of tapirs being a a food source here in Brazil. If they are, that´s for indians (err... amerind? Native pre columbian latin american???) only.

And I find it odd that amerindians would be telling the scientific community that those tapirs were from a "different species", unless one or two of them went to study biology at some university away from their local tribe area.

edit: reading the original article, it seems the natives say they new a different type of tapir. Certainly, "a different type" doesn´t necessarily means it´s a different species, nor were the indians claiming so.

there are different kinds of pumas too, however scientists determined the differences are not enough to be considered different species, just sub-species.

I think the original article tries to put to much emphasis on local population knowledge, as if they were aware that it consisted of a different species, when in fact they were only aware of morphological differences (and so were the scientists), which as we know, MAY NOT BE ENOUGH to classify the population as a different species.


following the same logic, humans would be classified as different species due to some big morphological differences (specially visible to us humans, since we are specialized in noticing those differences).

Of course, the biggest difference between this and Bigfoot (the same difference as with several other recent discoveries), is that this critter was hiding out in populations of closely related and very similar looking critters. Critters with similar bones, similar fur, similar scat, etc.

Where's the other species of North American 8-foot-tall primates for Bigfoot to hide amongst? Where are the any bones/fur/scat/etc. to be misidentified?

probably hiding among the local Comic-Con Wookie population.

 

[Dinwar]

And I find it odd that amerindians would be telling the scientific community that those tapirs were from a "different species", unless one or two of them went to study biology at some university away from their local tribe area.

You'd think that, but it's not actually true. In cases wherer scientists were able to go out with hunters from primative groups (not trying to be insulting here, I just can't think of a different way to put it--recent discussisons have soured me on the idea of calling them untouched or isolated), they've found that the hunters and the scientists agree to an astonishing degree on what things should be grouped together, at least at the species level (most of the primative groups don't have a concept of higher-order taxonomy, since they don't need it). This is particularly true, in the studies I've seen, in regard to chordates; I'm not sure how well it works in insects, worms, etc.

I think the original article tries to put to much emphasis on local population knowledge, as if they were aware that it consisted of a different species, when in fact they were only aware of morphological differences (and so were the scientists), which as we know, MAY NOT BE ENOUGH to classify the population as a different species.

Here we run into the issue of defining "species". Morphological differences certainly ARE sufficient to define new species--according to the morphospecies concept. And in practice that's what people use to identify species (which is why scientists and native hunters tend to agree so much). The biological species concept is good in theory, but no one uses it in practice (well, there are rare occasions when it's used, but it's extremely uncommon). Genetic species concepts suffer the same problems as the morphospecies concept, only moreso because it is exceedingly rare for a researcher to use the entire genome of an organism. They select specific sequences. Morphology may actually have an advantage there, because it selects multiple genes from all over the genome, including different chromosomes. The trick is identifying morphology that contains a genetic component, which is trickier than you'd think.

following the same logic, humans would be classified as different species due to some big morphological differences (specially visible to us humans, since we are specialized in noticing those differences).

It's been attempted. However, it falls apart once you gather a real dataset. Still, it's a risk. I'm always reminded of ammonites--they were sexually dimorphic, but researchers didn't know that until fairly recently (astonishingly recently, given the importance of that group to stratigraphy, which had a LOT of money put into it by oil companies). The morphospecies concept isn't ideal, certainly. However, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. The reason why taxonomists obsses over minute and apparently trivial details is that doing so allows us to mitigate some of the problems in using the morphospecies concept.

 

[Correa Neto]

never heard of tapirs being a a food source here in Brazil. If they are, that´s for indians (err... amerind? Native pre columbian latin american???) only.

...snip...

Garimpeiros (wildcat miners, illegal small-scale miners) will shoot and eat anything they find around their camps. Queixadas (wild pigs), capibaras, cotias (agouti), alligators, turtles, you name it. A tapir can give them a lot of meat.

Since unfortunately nowadays there are more garimpeiros than Indians...

 

[Jerrymander]

Big difference in 1912...

What's that? Oh it's another South American tapir skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.

What's that? Oh it's a giant hairy North American ape skull and skin. Ok you can just put those in the drawer over there.

Footers believe that bones of "giant" humans, may be bigfoots and are just collecting dust in the museum drawers.

 

[AcesHigh]

Here we run into the issue of defining "species". Morphological differences certainly ARE sufficient to define new species--according to the morphospecies concept. And in practice that's what people use to identify species (which is why scientists and native hunters tend to agree so much). The biological species concept is good in theory, but no one uses it in practice (well, there are rare occasions when it's used, but it's extremely uncommon). Genetic species concepts suffer the same problems as the morphospecies concept, only moreso because it is exceedingly rare for a researcher to use the entire genome of an organism. They select specific sequences. Morphology may actually have an advantage there, because it selects multiple genes from all over the genome, including different chromosomes. The trick is identifying morphology that contains a genetic component, which is trickier than you'd think.

I am sure that if natives saw dogs from different breeds for the first time, they would think each breed was a different species.

 

[Resume]

I am sure that if natives saw dogs from different breeds for the first time, they would think each breed was a different species.

So?

 

[Dinwar]

I am sure that if natives saw dogs from different breeds for the first time, they would think each breed was a different species.

As far as I'm concerned, a few of them are. It's my opinion that the only thing preventing us from identifying them as such is an absurd belief that human intervention is incapable of producing new species--which is identical "reasoning" to the Creationist nonsense about micro/macroevolution.

That said, I'm in the minority here, both on this forum and in the scientific community. I stand by my conclusion, and have yet to hear sufficient evidence to disprove it (the best evidence against my conclusion is that artificial insemination can produce viable offspring between breeds that otherwise would not interbreed; however, I see nothing in the biological species concept that indicates that artificial insemination is included under "breeding", and every breeding experiment I've seen involves actual mating). I just want to make it clear that I'm not speaking for the scientific comunity, or any part thereof, here.

 

[The Shrike]

. . . I'm not speaking for the scientific comunity, or any part thereof, here.

This member of that community agrees with your assessment, Dinwar. There is no reason for us not to recognize Great Danes and Dachshunds as distinct species.

 

[dasmiller]

As far as I'm concerned, a few of them are. It's my opinion that the only thing preventing us from identifying them as such is an absurd belief that human intervention is incapable of producing new species--which is identical "reasoning" to the Creationist nonsense about micro/macroevolution.

That said, I'm in the minority here, both on this forum and in the scientific community. I stand by my conclusion, and have yet to hear sufficient evidence to disprove it (the best evidence against my conclusion is that artificial insemination can produce viable offspring between breeds that otherwise would not interbreed; however, I see nothing in the biological species concept that indicates that artificial insemination is included under "breeding", and every breeding experiment I've seen involves actual mating). I just want to make it clear that I'm not speaking for the scientific comunity, or any part thereof, here.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view. For example, I occasionally dabble in birding, and identifying the species can often be difficult because the physical differences among some of the species may be quite subtle. And in many cases, the two "species" are interfertile, and there are even intergeneric hybrids. Under what reasonable system would a Cooper's Hawk and a Sharp-Shinned Hawk* be less similar than a Chihauhau and a Mastiff? But Coops and Sharpies are separate species, and I have seen discussions of subdividing the Cooper's Hawk into 3 separate species.

But dogs are one species?

*Trust me, coops and sharpies are very similar. I had one that would perch on a telephone pole near me, and I have dozens of high-quality pictures of it, and I still can't say for certain which it is.

 

[The Shrike]

*Trust me, coops and sharpies are very similar. I had one that would perch on a telephone pole near me, and I have dozens of high-quality pictures of it, and I still can't say for certain which it is.

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Seriously, send me a pm and I'll take a look for you.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

As far as I'm concerned, a few of them are. It's my opinion that the only thing preventing us from identifying them as such is an absurd belief that human intervention is incapable of producing new species--which is identical "reasoning" to the Creationist nonsense about micro/macroevolution.

While I understand the point you're making I don't think dogs are a good example. A tea-cup chihuahua may be mechanically incompatible with a mastiff (or not, depending on which breed is which gender and how much hands-on effort the breeder is willing to enact) but the genetics of each are still compatible. If you could get the breeds to breed you'd get a genetically viable dog with characteristics of each breed which could then be passed down to further.

Compare the dog example to mules, which cannot be bred.

 

[Dinwar]

A tea-cup chihuahua may be mechanically incompatible with a mastiff ... but the genetics of each are still compatible.

I actually addressed that point:

(the best evidence against my conclusion is that artificial insemination can produce viable offspring between breeds that otherwise would not interbreed; however, I see nothing in the biological species concept that indicates that artificial insemination is included under "breeding", and every breeding experiment I've seen involves actual mating)

What you are proposing is a special definition of "species" that is applied only to domestic dogs. It is not the biological sepcies concept applied to non-domesticated animals; no one ever talks about testing artificial insemination (for that matter, very few breeding experiments have ever been conducted--the workhorse species concept is morphospecies, not genetic isolation). I see no reason to grant greater importance to genetic incompatability than to physical incompatability--either one will necessarily cause genetic isolation, which is what the whole biological species concept rests upon. The genetic isolation is the thing (well, ostensibly; more on that below)--if we must use the biological species concept, anything that causes two populations of animals to not successfully interbreed when they come into contact with one another should be considered sufficient to demonstrate that they are different species.

Compare the dog example to mules, which cannot be bred.

Here's the other problem: animal hybrids do exist. Mules are, in rare cases, fertile. Female ligers are often fertile, while male ligers are not. And that's not getting into the problems with applying the biological species concept outside of Kingdom Animalia (for example, asexually reproducing organisms don't fit this concept at all). Reproductive isolation--even excluding the ad-hoc arguments about artificial insemination--is not the barrier commonly believed. The biological species concept is just as flawed as any other, and the nature of evolution necessarily causes tremendous gray areas in defining the precise boundaries of a species. I fully understand why some people do not believe that dogs should be considered multiple species--but the argument that they are should be considered separate is no less rational, and at least that one is consistent with the way we use the species concepts with non-domesticated animals.

 

[The Shrike]

^But that is the point: there are thousands of recognized species that are fully capable of interbreeding but just tend not to due to subtle differences in range, coloration, behavior, etc.

For example, there is no "hardware" that keeps a Red-headed Woodpecker from mating with a Red-bellied Woodpecker (both in the same genus). They're pretty much the same animal, except that their plumage, calls, behavior, and typical habitat differ. Those differences are what separate them into two distinct species. Raised together in captivity, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they were interfertile.

Contrast that with species that simply don't have the right hardware to get together, say a tiny California Quail and a massive Wild Turkey (different genera). In this case, I doubt even artificial insemination could produce viable offspring.

Which is more like the Teacup Chihuahua and Bull Mastiff? Physically, their differences are perhaps greater than those between a quail and a turkey; genetically, they are closer than the two congeneric woodpeckers. If our emphasis is on genetic similarity, then the two dogs should be Canis familiarius.

What Dinwar proposes is that the genetic similarity is moot if the two forms are so divergent morphologically that they cannot physically breed.