
Six-Legged Giant Finds Secret Hideaway, Hides for 80 Years (2012) - ForHackernews
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years
======
bpodgursky
What I don't fully understand is, usually when scientists try to preserve rare
species, there is a critical mass under which there isn't enough genetic
diversity to preserve the species (I've seen ~30 quoted for some rare
mammals). But in this case, just two individuals were able to start a viable
population. Why are these insects different? I can only think of a couple
reasons...

\- since these insects have a r-selection curve, it's ok if 90% of the
offspring are genetic defects, you can always produce another 1,000 eggs

\- the insects had maintained such a small population for so long that any
critical defects had been bred out

But I'd be interested to hear from a real biologist.

Edit: oops, meant r-selection, not k-selection

~~~
mapt
IANARB, but-

Minimum viable genetic diversity is not a particularly well-established or
even objectively knowable metric. I think the relevant number is often vastly
overstated, or at least stated without mentioning the strong and arbitrary
assumptions that need to be made in determining it.

Wikipedia says: "The cheetah has unusually low genetic variability. This is
accompanied by a very low sperm count, motility, and deformed flagella.[14]
Skin grafts between unrelated cheetahs illustrate the former point, in that
there is no rejection of the donor skin. It is thought that the species went
through a prolonged period of inbreeding following a genetic bottleneck during
the last ice age. This suggests that genetic monomorphism did not prevent the
cheetah from flourishing across two continents for thousands of years.[15]"

Now - cheetahs are objectively less fit than they would have been without
these population bottlenecks, but they're fit enough that they have not been
outcompeted. They are probably highly vulnerable to contagion, though - maybe
it's only a matter of time before something figures out how to wipe them
out... but maybe not. Science isn't gonna be able to predict that one for you.

Anything we can figure out how to breed in captivity, in a controlled
environment without predators and with an abundant food supply, has very low
pressure on it - these bugs could all have the insect equivalent of mental
retardation and missing limbs and at least some of them could probably make it
to successfully reproduce.

~~~
arthurcolle
what is the RB in your "I am not a..." ?

~~~
jmiwhite
'Real Biologist', as requested by the parent.

~~~
jonalmeida
Or possibly 'Research Biologist'.

------
lucb1e
What I find interesting about the paper[1], regarding housing:

> "[include] a jar of water. There is no need to cover the top of the jar, as
> LHISIs generally do not drown themselves as other insects do, except for
> very small nymphs on very rare occasions."

So I guess being stuck on a rock surrounded by water taught them to avoid
falling into the water, unlike apparently other (land-based) insects.

[1]
[http://www.aszk.org.au/docs/lhisi.pdf](http://www.aszk.org.au/docs/lhisi.pdf)

~~~
ars
They are also much much larger than most insects, that's helps too.

And strong enough to defeat surface tension.

------
jonalmeida
> Where, they wondered, did that poop come from?

The question that drives scientists to do what they do.

~~~
dghughes
As well as parents and dog owners.

------
lgunsch
Alberta is rat free, and is kept that way. Its been rat free for over 50 years
now. The border is patrolled to keep the rats out, and there is a hefty $5000
fine for keeping rats.

~~~
ahelwer
Questionable. Rat populations have been found at the Medicine Hat landfill,
first in 2012 and again in 2014[1]. I guess it's a good sign that it makes
national news when a population is found, but they're almost certainly present
elsewhere.

[1] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/several-rats-
spotted-a...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/several-rats-spotted-at-
medicine-hat-landfill-1.2602916)

~~~
goodcanadian
Perhaps, it is better to say "largely rat free." I grew up in eastern Alberta,
and I certainly never saw a rat until I moved out of province as an adult.

~~~
aetherson
I mean, I grew up in California, not even remotely rat free, and I think I've
seen... three-ish... rats in my nearly 40 years? Besides pets or lab animals.

Rats hide. Doesn't mean there aren't a fairly large number of them around.

~~~
goodcanadian
OK. I grew up on a farm where I saw plenty of mice and other wildlife that is
known for hiding. I never saw a rat nor any evidence of a rat.

EDITED to add: We had cats which killed mice and gophers and birds and voles
and all sorts of creatures. I NEVER saw a rat. I know it is hard to believe,
but Alberta really is (at least mostly) rat free.

~~~
barrkel
Rats are the one pest that are almost unafraid of humans. Once upon a time, I
lived in a wooden cabin that rats had found a way into, via holes cut in the
floor for pipes by the kitchen sink.

Late in the evening, one would pop up. I could get up to chase it away, but it
wouldn't flee until I got close, and it would pop out again a few seconds
later. It knew it could out-wait me and there was little I could do to stop it
that night. Trying to block the hole merely meant they ate away the wood
around the hole, until they could get back in again.

Mice aren't a problem at all. You don't want rats.

------
grondilu
I'm all for preserving endangered species and all, but frankly these insects
scare the hell out of me and if I was anywhere close to one of them I may run
away, screaming like a little girl.

I believe I'm not very exceptional a person thus I suspect they'll have
difficulties convincing people to have this species reintroduced on any
inhabited island.

~~~
jusben1369
'screaming like a small child" perhaps is better.

~~~
ars
> screaming like a small child" perhaps is better.

Why is that better?

Have you never heard a little girl scream? It's not the same as the sound of a
little boy.

Let's not let political correctness wash away every difference that makes
individuals special.

~~~
dnewms
Since voices don't change until puberty -- any kid screaming sounds the same.

And in the vein of special individuals, there are little girls who love and
hate insects, and little boys who love and hate insects. Perhaps a more
original phrase or analogy would be better: I would scream like a Dryococelus
australis being attacked by rats.

~~~
ars
> Since voices don't change until puberty -- any kid screaming sounds the
> same.

Apparently you have not met any. They don't sound anything alike, except maybe
as newborns.

> there are little girls who love and hate insects

He just said scream like a little girl, there was no connotation of girls
hating or loving insects. Just a sound.

~~~
vacri
_there was no connotation of girls hating or loving insects. Just a sound._

There was, however, the connotation that girls are prissy and easily scared.

~~~
gambiting
Where? How? There is no such thing said anywhere - if you made such connection
in your brain then well, it's your problem. It's a description of a sound,
nothing more, nothing less.

~~~
vacri
You strike me as the kind of person who literally believes in everything a
politician says, and is unaware of subtexts. If you think that all that people
say is only the pure literal surface meaning of their words, than that is very
much _your_ problem, not mine.

Also, the trope is "run away, screaming like a little girl", not just
"screaming like a little girl".

~~~
gambiting
I think this is a general problem with us programmers - we read everything
incredibly literally. If you want to read into subtext then please do, but I
don't see it. Fortunately I am not interested in politics.

------
nathanb
Are there any updates to this story? How is the de-ratification going? A few
searches did not turn up anything that seemed like a useful update.

~~~
ForHackernews
Here's a slightly more recent article from August 2012:
[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-
ponies/2012/08/2...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-
ponies/2012/08/22/lord-howe-island-stick-insects-are-going-home/)

It says that they've established a captive population of giant stick insects
on Lord Howe, and they were planning to start eradicating rodents this year:

"The plan is to eradicate the rats and mice from conservation areas on Lord
Howe Island in 2015, and then reintroduce the captive-bred stick insects, and
their natural predators – a sub-species of boobook owl. This AU$9 million
project has just been approved last month, as announced by Federal Environment
Minister Tony Burke and NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker. According to
the government press release, they hope to wipe out more than 130,000 rodents
using poison baits, some dropped by air, in allocated conservation areas.
Special ‘arks’ will be used to protect native, endangered species until the
rodents are gone."

------
miander
I'm not sure why, but this brought a tear to my eye. Those insects are
beautiful in their own way.

~~~
dEnigma
Same for me, it's mostly the romantic element of the lone survivors hidden on
that unreal island.

------
cfontes
This has been here already a couple times... But it's amazing nonetheless.

------
pvaldes
The idea is not to change disgusting black rats by disgusting black huge
insects, in fact is more complex.

If we could wipe rats and restore the unique ecosystem some other species
could re-flourish again.

Like this fligthless bird, the Lord Howe Island Woodhen, only 15 of those
birds remained in 1980 in the world, about 300 birds currently:

[http://m2.i.pbase.com/o6/21/489821/1/146964222.sYTnvRRL.DSC_...](http://m2.i.pbase.com/o6/21/489821/1/146964222.sYTnvRRL.DSC_9444.jpg)

Or this beautiful endemic stag bettle

[http://blog-imgs-46-origin.fc2.com/a/r/c/arc6464/20111120214...](http://blog-
imgs-46-origin.fc2.com/a/r/c/arc6464/20111120214347443.jpg)

this exclusive snail:

[http://www.lordhowe-
tours.com.au/images/snail_survey.jpg](http://www.lordhowe-
tours.com.au/images/snail_survey.jpg)

some birds will benefit also

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Lord_Howe...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Lord_Howe_Silvereye.jpg)

[http://www.barraimaging.com.au/Birds-By-
Country/BirdsOfAustr...](http://www.barraimaging.com.au/Birds-By-
Country/BirdsOfAustralia-1/Passerines/Whistlers-and-Allies/Australian-Golden-
Whistler/i-dLTbqQX/0/L/Australian%20Golden%20Whistler%20Male%20%28%20Pachycephala%20pectoralis%20%29%20Ssp%20contempta%20Lord%20Howe%20NSW%20May%202011%20AU-
AUGW-11-L.jpg)

[http://www.avesphoto.com/website/pictures/TLTGRY-2.jpg](http://www.avesphoto.com/website/pictures/TLTGRY-2.jpg)

and also this big bush cockroach:

[http://lordhowe-tours.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Cock...](http://lordhowe-tours.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Cockroach_small.jpg)

And also other 950 endemic species

------
habi
There's a very nice animation short on Vimeo about the story:
[https://vimeo.com/76647062](https://vimeo.com/76647062)

------
jheriko
i'm in two minds about this.

on the one hand, this is evolution in action, the habitat for this animal was
decreased by the presence of a successful predator.

on the other, rats have no sympathy from me, and we have plenty of them
around, so why not wipe them out to allow insects to flourish?

somehow killing a bunch of rats to allow a failed species to reclaim its
territory seems wrong. so i lean towards letting this insect take its chances
in its tiny little habitat.

if we were talking about exterminating people to make room for any of the
species we have destroyed it would be a no-brainer...

~~~
glesica
But it wasn't natural competition, we brought the rats there. I guess you can
argue that the actions of humans are just as "natural" as any others. However,
I think this is a very foolish way of looking at the situation because we act
based on intelligence, not instinct.

Competition only "works" when everyone is playing by the same rules. This
means that we throw off the equilibrium for the rest of the planet because we
play by different rules. In fact, our intelligence is such that I don't even
think we're playing the same game any more.

~~~
jheriko
its not just that we brought the rats there, its that rats are so well adapted
to being transported by people that they spread with us and succeed in diverse
habitats.

keeping that island rat free is going to be a constant battle, because rats
are so good at spreading by using our transportation as a vector.

like i say, i'm in two minds... i do think its incredibly sad to wipe out a
species by introducing another like this. we lose something really special and
unique. i just can't give equal weight to the argument because its so flooby
dooby and driven by emotion rather than sensiblity.

also, i don't think we play by different rules... we classically out compete
every other species in almost every habitat. we are the pinnacle of evolution
today. the fallout of our actions are nature in action, despite the temptation
to treat humans with some special place of privilege in the natural order of
things... that being said, our alturism is part of that success, and is
ultimately the source for the feeling argument.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
We are special though. How many species can simply alter an environment so
that it can live somewhere that would otherwise be uninhabitable by it?

Now seeing that we're already altering our environment however we want, why
not alter it back? Especially if you consider humans to be playing by the same
rules. In that light, who cares about the rats? We out competed them, we'll
alter things in ways that please us.

~~~
jheriko
some of the very first and most basic life, algae, completely transformed the
atmosphere of the entire planet and continue to have the dominant effect on
it, in ways that dwarf the human impact on it in recent times, we do not
consider them special for the scale of their effect...

but yes, you are right about altering it back. this is why our altruism and
the 'feeling' argument has more merit than logically it should. (for me)

~~~
glesica
But the algae didn't _intend_ to alter it. That's the difference. We don't
respond to environmental pressure, we just apply equal and opposite pressure
(for the most part, obviously everything has a cost). It's like a psychology
experiment. If one of the subjects figures out the parameters of the
experiment the experiment is ruined because that individual will likely mess
up the whole system by acting intelligently instead of naturally.

We are the only ones that significantly alter our environment. If there was a
continuum of intelligence, with a fairly smooth and not-to-concave curve, I
would be inclined to agree with you. But there isn't, it's a bunch of animals
that have no appreciable ability to alter their environments purposefully, and
then us. Therefore anything we do falls in the "contaminated experiment"
category.

~~~
jheriko
define intent and intelligence?

i'm yet to see evidence of free will, i'm not convinced i am not just a
machine doing its thing like everything else is... also, this feels like a
religious argument from both sides.

~~~
glesica
I agree that this borders on philosophy. The reason I hold the opinion I hold
is that I feel it results in greater sustainability. The Earth regulates
itself pretty effectively and did so for a long time before we got smart.
Therefore, I think we're better off messing around with it as little as
possible and allowing that self-regulation to continue to the greatest extent
possible since we don't actually know if we can do better, or even as well,
(and if we bet that we can and can't, we're in trouble).

------
compto35
How do you get rats off an island? My grandmother showed me…

~~~
gamegoblin
For anyone who is confused, compto35 is referencing this chilling monologue
from the James Bond film "Skyfall"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0dFsAtAlEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0dFsAtAlEo)

------
fillskills
Its always great to hear a positive story in conservation

------
vex
The title of this article is base clickbait...

~~~
vlunkr
I can't exactly describe how, but it doesn't feel like clickbait. Maybe
because it wasn't misleading, obviously it wasn't going to be about real six-
legged giant, so I assumed it was an animal or something.

~~~
matt_morgan
Right. It turned out that it was /actually a good title for the article/.

