

Inter-species mating could doom polar bear - dkasper
http://isittheonion.com/inter-species-mating-could-doom-polar-bear-ex

======
makmanalp
Actual article:
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/environmentclimatewarmingspecies...](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/environmentclimatewarmingspeciesarcticbear)

~~~
Groxx
They say "pizzlies", but I like the OP's "grolar bear" much better.

They seem scandalized, or maybe robbed, by this. It's a survival tactic. _It's
working_. Sheesh. Let them do what they do, the _natural_ thing, instead of
trying to preserve a too-small gene pool.

------
iwwr
Under what conditions is a species considered distinct from species with which
it can form reproductively-viable offspring?

~~~
presidentender
The species distinction is often made when two populations of otherwise
compatible creatures do not reproduce due to time, location, or physiological
factors. In this case, geography has historically kept Grizzlies and Polar
Bears separate, so their physical features have diverged a great deal despite
remaining sexually compatible.

In other cases, different mating seasons or physiological incompatibility
might prevent breeding, even though the gametes are compatible. Coyotes and
wolves and dogs can breed, for instance, but they usually don't and so they're
considered separate species.

The mathematician in me hates this abuse of what should be an absolute and
well-defined term, and the cynic wonders about eugenicists making a species
distinction between the various human lineages.

------
DanielBMarkham
Shouldn't the article title be just the opposite?

"Polar bears assure survival with inter-species mating"

Wonder why people always want nothing to change? Seems like a strange thing
found in folks of all religions and philosophies. This sounds like great news:
life carries on. Such a great story and such a sucky title.

------
sukuriant
Two things: Creationists (to which I believe the middle of the Posterous
article was referring) shouldn't be upset at all. The Bible says kinds, not
species, and that kinds can and do mate.

Two: why try to cull the mixing? If it's working (and isn't the operation of
natural selection all about discouraging what doesn't work?) why try to put a
human hand in the activity? Are we so desperately trying to retain what we
define as species?

~~~
mkross
I assume the reason to stop is due to a feeling of guilt. Instead of
considering human influence as a part of nature, many people consider it to be
some sort of perversion. So instead of being amazed by the adaptability of
life, people feel guilty about causing changes.

Plus there is the whole time scale thing. The fact that evolution took a
really long time to differentiate polar and grizzly bears and in a few
lifetimes you would see that split undone is concerning.

~~~
Swizec
If the two species can mate it was never that big a split to begin with.

Personally I'm far more intrigued by the fact evolution can take action as
quickly as a few generations if need be.

------
Swizec
So what exactly is so worrying or shockingly new about what essentially boils
down to evolution?

~~~
sukuriant
I suspect adaptation might be a better term. Mutations aren't causing this or
doing anything (so far as I know) with this, it's merely two creatures
breeding and their gene pools intermingling.

~~~
Swizec
That's still evolution.

It's just a matter of changing genes to produce something new and then
selecting the best outcomes. Whether the change happens randomly or because
two organisms combined their DNA, is irrelevant.

~~~
sukuriant
I stand corrected. A quick glance at Wikipedia showed your correctness.
Apologies.

------
Mz
I am reminded of a cartoon in one of my environmental studies college texts.
(IIRC:) The cartoon depicted a colony of bacteria on pre-historic earth having
hissy fits and NIMBY-like protests that their off-gassing of oxygen was
destroying the environment and would soon endanger the survival of their
species if something wasn't done about it.

