Archaeologica.org

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 043956.ece

Roy.

This is hardly news. I saw a Nat Geo special on the evolution of polar bears some years ago.

As I recall it drove Arch nuts at the time.




(Not that it requires a long drive.)

True Min, I saw it as well, the important point, from the Polar Bear's viewpoint. is that the species has already survived one period of warming without apparent harm.

Roy.

Polar bears which live on melting ice have a definite problem, though.

However, I had neighbors who went to Churchill, Manitoba to see the polar bears who were merrily living in northern Canada and thus not only in no danger of drowning when the ice melted but having themselves a field day in the town dump.

( I resisted their offer to join them. Churchill, Manitoba is not my idea of a great vacation spot.)

Which leads me to something I've wondered about before Min, are there in effect two sub species, the ice dwellers and the landwellers?

Roy.

I don't think so...at least I've never heard of it.

Besides, there was another documentary not too long ago about a guy who got in trouble for shooting a polar bear that turned out to be not a polar bear. Rather it was a hybrid which had a polar bear mom and a brown bear dad.... which kind of also shoots the idea of "species" down in flames, too.

They kept saying that brown bears and polar bears do not get into that kind of contact but, at least once apparently, the bears had other ideas.

Yeah, saw that as well, threarened the guy with a massive fine.
The reason I asked is the general idea here seems to be that the bears on the ice never leave it.

Roy.

Right. His hunting license was for a polar bear and he didn't do a DNA test on it before he pulled the trigger.

Typical bureaucrats.

(I would have demanded a jury trial!)



There also seems to be an idea that polar bears and brown bears can't interbreed.

Perhaps someone should ask them.

Roy.

Who do we have that's expendable?

Rather it was a hybrid which had a polar bear mom and a brown bear dad.... which kind of also shoots the idea of "species" down in flames, too.

Not. Different species can and, occasionally, do interbreed. They're still different species.

It doesn't get political until humans are involved. Then, there "aren't any."

Not. Different species can and, occasionally, do interbreed. They're still different species.

It doesn't get political until humans are involved. Then, there "aren't any."

It has proven impossible to obtain a scientific definition of the word "species." Obviously, the one that says that different species cannot interbreed is wrong.

Humans always muck things up. I agree with you there, uni.

Who do we have that's expendable?

I'd like to volunteer out prime minister please Min!.
Species! Are Great Danes abd Chihuahua different species? Genetically no. HSN HSS? Pass.

Roy.

Are Great Danes abd Chihuahua different species? Genetically no.

This isn't going to be one of those Clintonian arguments that hinge on what "is" means is it ?

My ex-wife's sister had possibly the silliest-looking dog ever born. Cross between a German Shepherd and a Dauchshund (and don't ask me how they managed it -- they did).

Clearly a hybrid of two distinct species

Species! Are Great Danes abd Chihuahua different species? Genetically no. HSN HSS? Pass

I got into that discussion on another board some time ago with a guy who was insisting that the skeletal differences between HNS and HSS 'proved' they were different species. I asked one innocent question. "What skeletal differences are those? YOu mean like the differences between modern Watusi and Inuit?"

And the battle was on!



And if you want to send expendable politicians then we have a whole party full of them!