Pachyderm Evolution in Action

[aten_vs_ra]

Tuskless elephants evolving in China due to poaching

Sun Jul 17, 3:59 AM ET

BEIJING, July 17 (AFP) - A recent study has predicted that more male Asian elephants in China will be born without tusks because poaching of tusked elephants is reducing the gene pool, the China Daily reported Sunday.

The study, conducted in the Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture in southwest China's Yunnan province, where two-thirds of China's Asian elephants live, found that the tuskless phenomenon is spreading, the report said.

The tusk-free gene, which is found in between two and five percent of male Asian elephants, has increased to between five percent and 10 percent in elephants in China, according to Zhang Li, an associate professor of zoology at Beijing Normal University.

"This decrease in the number of elephants born with tusks shows the poaching pressure for ivory on the animal," said Zhang, whose research team has been studying elephants since 1999 at a reserve in Xishuangbanna.

Only male elephants have tusks, which are said to be a symbol of masculinity and a weapon to fight for territory. However, due to poaching for ivory, the elephants' pride has become a death sentence, the report said.

"The larger tusks the male elephant has, the more likely it will be shot by poachers," said Zhang. "Therefore, the ones without tusks survive, preserving the tuskless gene in the species."

A similar decline in elephants with tusks has been seen in Uganda, which experienced heavy poaching in the 1970s and '80s, the report said.

However, Zhang's findings of the spread of the tuskless gene due to poaching must be tested, according to some academics.

"This is, of course, a possibility, but till now there is no clear genetic proof that it can occur," Vivek Menon, executive director of the Wildlife Trust of India, was quoted as saying.

Rampant poaching of male elephants for tusks has also caused the female-to-male ratio to rise from the ideal 2:1 to 4:1 in China and 100:1 in India, the report said.

There are between 45,000 and 50,000 Asian elephants in 13 countries, including China and India. China only has about 250, according to the report.

China is among 160 nations which signed an international treaty administered since 1989 banning the trade in ivory and products of other endangered animals.

Nonetheless, four Asian elephants were found shot dead in China last year.

In addition to poaching, human activity that causes a loss of habitat also threatens the animals.

Yahoo News

[wautd]

Cool news.

I hope the next step will be whales developing some kind of stealth mode that'll screw over the Japanese and Norwegians

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

On one hand, I'm glad that there's some adaption that might help them survive; on the other, I'm saddened to hear that they're losing something that otherwise helps them and is so emblematic of the animal.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I would always think of elephants as having tusks,
but if this is the only way they'll survive then" forward no-tusk".

(Just blame the damn poachers )

[Erik von Nein]

Well, seeing as how they're greatest predators at the time are people hunting them for tusks it's not wonder they've started adapting to not have them, as they're too big a liability. Though, it's always interesting to hear about adaptation happening this quickly, especially when people start saying how cetation evolution happened too quickly.

[bilateralrope]

I would always think of elephants as having tusks,
but if this is the only way they'll survive then" forward no-tusk".

(Just blame the damn poachers )

Agreed.

I wounder how various fundie groups will react to this when someone brings it up to counter the micro/macro evolution nonsense

[WyrdNyrd]

I wounder how various fundie groups will react to this when someone brings it up to counter the micro/macro evolution nonsense

Easy - this is a clear case of "micro-evolution", as the tuskless elephants can still inter-breed with the tusked ones.

Don't expect logic or evidence to have any effect on an illogical viewpoint.

[VT-16]

that'll screw over the Japanese and Norwegians

Hey, don´t playa-hate!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I wounder how various fundie groups will react to this when someone brings it up to counter the micro/macro evolution nonsense

Easy - this is a clear case of "micro-evolution", as the tuskless elephants can still inter-breed with the tusked ones.

Don't expect logic or evidence to have any effect on an illogical viewpoint. :(

Right, this is trait-selection, an adaptation within species. Though if elephants aren't completely extinct within ten-thousand years, one might suspect that you'll observe actual speciation going on, with elephants reacting to the dual pressures of habitat destruction and hunting by slowly becoming smaller and tuskless. So in a period of 10,000 years or greater, you'll eventually have a new dwarf, tuskless elephant species.

[Qwerty 42]

Don't be ridiculous, guys. Obviously God loves elephants so he's making them less attractive to the hunters so he can spread peace and love! How you can look at the obvious change in species and conclude that it's one of your evil liberal conspiracies is beyond me! Look and behold the glory of God!


I'm honestly prepared to hear that.

[wolveraptor]

I'm torn between saying, "cool!" and saying, "that sucks". I mean, it is a great example of evolution in action, and with a large mammallian too, but it's at the expense of the pachyderms.

I don't understand how India can have such a rampant ivory trade. The 80% of Hindus couldn't be majorly contributing, and I always figured that Muslims had a bunch of laws against animal cruelty in the Koran (right down to unloading the pack animals as soon as possible, to avoid extra duress). Muslims make up about 13%, so most of the poaching might be done by the other 7%. I don't see how they'd create such a huge impact though.

[FSTargetDrone]

Don't be ridiculous, guys. Obviously God loves elephants so he's making them less attractive to the hunters so he can spread peace and love! How you can look at the obvious change in species and conclude that it's one of your evil liberal conspiracies is beyond me! Look and behold the glory of God!


I'm honestly prepared to hear that.

And I would say to such an argument that it would be simpler for God to direct the poachers to stop poaching in some manner (visions/dreams). Why change the elephant at all?

[Striderteen]

I wounder how various fundie groups will react to this when someone brings it up to counter the micro/macro evolution nonsense

Easy - this is a clear case of "micro-evolution", as the tuskless elephants can still inter-breed with the tusked ones.

Don't expect logic or evidence to have any effect on an illogical viewpoint.

Right, this is trait-selection, an adaptation within species. Though if elephants aren't completely extinct within ten-thousand years, one might suspect that you'll observe actual speciation going on, with elephants reacting to the dual pressures of habitat destruction and hunting by slowly becoming smaller and tuskless. So in a period of 10,000 years or greater, you'll eventually have a new dwarf, tuskless elephant species.

Actually, tuskless elephants already exist; it's not that uncommon a variation. They're simply becoming more common because the tusked ones get killed for their ivory and the tuskless ones are spared; classic natural selection.

[wolveraptor]

Qt: might tuskless elephants be gay? This is just a random hypothesis, but I read somewhere that a homosexual's brain is wired more like a female's than a male's. The tuskless gene might be associated with other, more feminine qualities in elephants, like reduced size (which would also be helpful in avoiding poachers), and different behaviors (unless those were weeded out eventually).

[Alyeska]

Link

Elephants 'losing tusks'
From correspondents in Beijing
July 19, 2005
From: The Times


EVOLUTION is helping the elephant fight back against poachers.

More male elephants are now being born without tusks because hunting of the animals for their ivory is reducing the gene pool.
The tusk-free gene, which is found in 2 to 5 per cent of male Asian elephants, has increased to between 5 and 10 per cent in elephants in China, according to a study by Zhang Li, an associate professor of zoology at Beijing Normal University.

"This decrease in the number of elephants born with tusks shows the poaching pressure for ivory on the animal," said Mr Zhang, who has been conducting research since 1999 at a nature reserve in the lush southwestern Xishuangbanna region, where two-thirds of China's Asian elephants live.

Unlike African elephants, only the male Asian elephant has tusks, which he uses as a weapon to fight for territory. But they are prized by hunters and regarded by Chinese as a symbol of masculinity.

The elephant's pride has been its death sentence. China is one of the world's biggest centres for smuggling ivory.


"The larger tusks the male elephant has, the more likely it will be shot by poachers," Mr Zhang said. "Therefore, the ones without tusks survive, preserving the tuskless gene in the species."

The phenomenon was not the result of natural causes. "It is a reluctant choice made in the face of a gun."

China is one of 160 nations that signed a treaty in 1989 banning the trade in ivory and products of other endangered animals. Trade in Asian elephant ivory had been banned since 1975.

Despite the ban, four Asian elephants were shot in China last year. Because of the rampant killing of male elephants for ivory, the female-to-male ratio had changed from the ideal of 2:1 in China to 4:1, whereas in India the ratio was 100:1, Mr Zhang's report said.

That uneven ratio was attributable to the dramatic reduction in the fertility of the species and the depletion of its gene pool, Mr Zhang said. Some academics have questioned Mr Zhang's assertion that evolution was playing a role in saving the elephant.

"This is, of course, a possibility, but till now there is no clear genetic proof that it can occur," said Vivek Menon, executive director of the Wildlife Trust of India.

From The Times

I always find stuff like that interesting. Very similar to the bacteria adapting to anti-biotics. Nature is adapting to human actions.

[Rye]

Already posted under the title "Pachyderm evolution in action" or something similar.

[Alyeska]

Ah, must have missed it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Yep, already posted. Here, in fact.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I was told it's "not evolution" because it's man who's doing it. Apparently, nothing man does is natural, so it can't be a part of evolution. This is "artificial." I don't get that.



Wouldn't this be an example of natural selective pressures? Except, in this case, man is the animal that is the pressure.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I was told it's "not evolution" because it's man who's doing it. :lol: Apparently, nothing man does is natural, so it can't be a part of evolution. This is "artificial." I don't get that.



Wouldn't this be an example of natural selective pressures? Except, in this case, man is the animal that is the pressure.

Yes, this is an example of a natural selective pressure. Natural selection and evolution are both entirely blind to the forces which are driving the selection. Things which change ecosystems include, but are not limited to:

- Gradual climate change resulting in a shift in the ecosystem, causing isolated populations to rapidly adapt, and then spread out to replace the current mainstream population. (Classical natural selection.)

- Asteroid impact/volcanic eruption/devastating tsunamis/giant fires destroying most ecological niches in an area, leaving behind relatively isolated populations. These undergo the selective pressures that groups in the first scenario undergo.

- Agents which diminish or destroy populations and remove them from an ecological niche (such as disease, introduction of new competitors or predators (such as humans.)) These leave behind survivors which . . . okay, you get the picture by now.

And by your fundie friend's argument, antibiotic resistant bacteria are also not an example of evolution (a laughably bizarre notion, even for a creationist, since most of them are willing to accept examples of microevolution,) since antibiotic-resistant bacteria come about as a direct consequence of human intervention. (This oversimplifies things a bit. Bacteria in nature also face the same pressure of antibiotics, since many human antibiotics are, in fact, derived from fungi and other species of bacteria which produce them as a means of nuking their competition.)

[Zero]

I was told it's "not evolution" because it's man who's doing it. Apparently, nothing man does is natural, so it can't be a part of evolution. This is "artificial." I don't get that.



Wouldn't this be an example of natural selective pressures? Except, in this case, man is the animal that is the pressure.

I wonder if selective pressures can change when there's a species like mankind in the world. Could evolution shift towards our notions of cuteness, towards what we can use without killing off? Dunno, just wondering... something I've been thinking about lately.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I was told it's "not evolution" because it's man who's doing it. :lol: Apparently, nothing man does is natural, so it can't be a part of evolution. This is "artificial." I don't get that.



Wouldn't this be an example of natural selective pressures? Except, in this case, man is the animal that is the pressure.

I wonder if selective pressures can change when there's a species like mankind in the world. Could evolution shift towards our notions of cuteness, towards what we can use without killing off? Dunno, just wondering... something I've been thinking about lately.

Yes. Observe the domestic dog and cat. Both of them retain puppy and kitten behaviours well into adulthood, making them more docile and playful and sociable than a wolf or African wildcat would be. This is because humans have aggressively favored animals with a friendlier disposition to breed in territories that humans control.