Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | Science : Genetics | print version

Life Is Short...

by NYTimes.com

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/19angi.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sure, Michael Phelps may have snapped a string of Olympic records like so many Rice Krispies in milk, but what was this child of Poseidon up against, anyway? Elite human athletes from 250 countries.

A small, speckled, asparagus-green chameleon of Madagascar, by contrast, holds a world speed record among just about all of the nearly 30,000 different animals equipped with four limbs and a backbone.

Admittedly, it's not a record many of us would aspire to best. As researchers recently reported in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the entire life span of the Furcifer labordi chameleon — from the moment of conception to development in the egg, hatching, maturation, breeding and right through to its last little lizardly thud to the ground — clocks in at barely a year.

That hypercondensed biography, the scientists said, may well make the chameleon the shortest-lived tetrapod on Earth, a creature chronologically more like a butterfly or a sea squirt than like the other reptiles, frogs, birds and mammals with which it is taxonomically bundled.

Equally bizarre, said Christopher J. Raxworthy, an author of the new report, the chameleon spends some two-thirds of its abbreviated existence as an egg buried in sand, with a mere 16 to 20 weeks allocated to all post-shellular affairs.

Moreover, the chameleons operate by a synchronized schedule, hatching, growing, mating and dying at more or less the same times and at the same pace throughout the year. As a result, said Dr. Raxworthy, associate curator of herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History, "if you go into a forest during the dry season, the whole population of chameleons there will be represented by eggs."

Counterintuitive though it may seem, the extremity of F. labordi's schedule could prove valuable for tracking down genes and other biological factors that promote longevity. The researchers observed that the chameleon is not merely short-lived as a matter of averages. It is an obligate annual species, destined for death after a single spin around the sun, and that stated fate differs markedly from the varying degrees of perenniality found throughout the tetrapod clan.

"There are about a dozen lizard species known to be short-lived, in which a good proportion of individuals die off by a year," said Kristopher B. Karsten of the zoology department at Oklahoma State University, another author of the report. "But there are always some that make it to the next year, so the species' maximal longevity is greater than one year."

No such luck for our bug-eyed Malagasy friends, which live in the arid, scrubby southwestern region of the giant island. "Once they reach the end of the season," Dr. Karsten said, "they're done," and they will drop from the trees with the papery grace of autumn leaves.

Assuming the execution orders are somehow part of the chameleon's program, researchers might be able to identify the specific genetic or hormonal assassins in lizard cells, find their analogues in human cells and put a cap in them.

The new work also underscores the growing use of so-called life history theory to trace the history and contours of life on Earth.

Scientists have determined that many essential features of an animal's portfolio are linked, among them whether at birth it looks fetal and helpless like a newborn kitten or precocious and competent like a neonatal giraffe; how big the average litter is; the speed with which the animal reaches sexual maturity; the length of time between births; and the pace at which an adult ages.

Try to improve or optimize one of these parameters and you end up paying somewhere else along the line. "One of the most robust things to come out of life history theory is that trade-offs exist," said Steven N. Austad, the author of "Why We Age" and a professor of cellular and structural biology at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

"If you increase the number of young, the cost is often accelerated aging. If you get something that lives longer, you get costs early in life, with lower fertility and even sterility."

Selective pressures in the environment push species toward one life history course or another. One example is that if you're a species in which the great majority of adults end up being killed by predators or disease, it's best to invest your resources in breeding early and often and not to bother worrying about long-term needs like a robust DNA repair system. And so it is that rodents beloved by carnivores everywhere have high fecundity and relatively poor longevity.

If you're a species in which infant and juvenile mortality is comparatively great, as it is with giant tortoises, for example, the emphasis is often on making the best of adulthood, with delayed maturity and extended life spans.

Catastrophic extrinsic changes may quickly rewrite a species' game plan. In another new report from the National Academies journal, researchers presented evidence that Tasmanian devils, the largest of all carnivorous marsupials, have responded to an epidemic of fatal transmissible tumors among adults with a 16-fold increase in precocious puberty among the young. If you're likely to be gone tomorrow, you'd better start begetting today.

Furcifer labordi's extreme life history likewise seems born of extreme adversity and volatility. The chameleon is one of the smallest members of its genus, and adults are readily, avidly snacked on by birds and snakes. The local climate is harsh and unpredictable, lowering the odds of survival beyond a single rainy season.

In addition, the rainy season, which begins in November, when the chameleons hatch en masse, is brief and must be frantically exploited. The young coil-tongued lizards immediately start lassoing insects, and they eat so much, Dr. Raxworthy said, "that they practically grow in front of your very eyes."

By January the chameleons are ready to mate, a nasty, often violent business of males fighting males, females fighting males, and all of them wishing they were somewhere else. Despite their cuteness, Dr. Raxworthy said, "chameleons can be very antisocial, and if you crowd them, they'll happily fight to the death."

Dr. Karsten suspects that Furcifer labordi's compressed breeding season fosters such high levels of aggression that the chameleons die, in part, of hormone overdose.

Another athletic career cut tragically short by steroids.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 60 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #233986 by Cartomancer on August 20, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon... you come and go, you come and go...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

2. Comment #233990 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Red, green and gold?

Other Comments by Brian English

3. Comment #233992 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

"... different animals equipped with four limbs and a backbone."

So this would exclude politicians?

Other Comments by J Mac

4. Comment #233994 by Eshto on August 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm

If you're a species in which infant and juvenile mortality is comparatively great, as it is with giant tortoises, for example, the emphasis is often on making the best of adulthood, with delayed maturity and extended life spans.

So that's the secret of longevity - lots and lots of babies dying.

Take note!

Other Comments by Eshto

5. Comment #233996 by randumbness47 on August 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm

So this is a species that 'goes extinct' every year, but leaves behind eggs that eventually hatch and give new life to the species. Neat!

Other Comments by randumbness47

6. Comment #234002 by ukvillafan on August 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

red gold and green! to rhyme with dream

come on, get with it!!

Other Comments by ukvillafan

7. Comment #234004 by Don_Quix on August 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm

I don't know why, but for some reason I find the term "post-shellular" amusing.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

8. Comment #234007 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 5:50 pm

red gold and green! to rhyme with dream

I see you've hit upon my first deliberate mistake for the day. I do it so that I appear less than perfect so that you all are not intimidated by my fearsome intellect and memory. It makes me appear more human.

(Yeah, right, they'll buy that!) ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

9. Comment #234017 by ThomasB on August 20, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Unfortunately, the cut-and-paste on this article didn't include the author's name: Natalie Angier.

I enjoyed this article as I have the others. I'm looking forward to reading The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Whirligig-Beautiful-Basics-Science/dp/0618242953

Some of you will recall her essay: Confessions of a lonely atheist, also published in the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html

Other Comments by ThomasB

10. Comment #234036 by GordonYKWong on August 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Just a thought... Has anyone pointed out this species (Furcifer labordi chameleon) to txpiper? As an example of evolution that does not drive towards long life and ultimately immortal life.

These chameleon have extremely short life to suits their environment because the enviroment shapes them so. Simple. I am sure txpiper can understand this. (I hope)

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

11. Comment #234083 by TIKI AL on August 20, 2008 at 9:08 pm

" a nasty, often violent business of males fighting males, females fighting males, and all of them wishing they were somewhere else."

...reminds me of my high school prom.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

12. Comment #234109 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I have a very off topic question for all of you, but I'm really curious. I'm studying evolutionary biology and I recently read Dawkin's book The Devil's Chaplain. In it is an essay about the rights of animals (mainly the greater apes), and I can't help but wonder what Dawkin's (and all of those who deeply understand evolution) opinions are on being a vegetarian. It seems to me that if we are all cousins, and if we all have the option not to eat each other, then isn't it morally correct to decide NOT to eat your distant (albeit very distant cousin) if you have the choice?

For example, many people are appalled at the idea of humans killing other humans (thankfully), but shouldn't we be just as appalled at humans killing our other cousins (cows or insert animal here _____)?

I am currently not a vegan or vegetarian, but I have thought about it for a while since it seems to be the only morally correct thing to be with the knowledge I have of evolution.

My question is this: Are you a vegetarian/vegan, and do you believe that it is morally wrong to be anything other than vegetarian/vegan?

Also, is Dawkins a vegan/vegetarian?

P.S. Before you answer, think about whether your answer would also be correct if you inserted "humans" where you type "animals". We are all cousins, so the distinction between which type (species) of cousin should not matter.

Other Comments by equivocal20

13. Comment #234113 by kkelly on August 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

12, would you rather eat a cow or Terri Schiavo?

Other Comments by kkelly

14. Comment #234118 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 10:34 pm

No offense kkelly, but I don't think you really get the pith of my question. It is not a question of what I'd rather do. Obviously, since I was brought up in today's culture, I would rather eat the cow. There may be an evolutionary reason for this (I probably share more genes with Terri Schiavo than with the cow or any other creature), but does that still mean that it is fine to eat the cow?

To put it another way, if given the choice to eat you or my brother, I would eat you. However, does that make it morally correct? Of course not. Therefore, your question is not an answer to my question. Although, it was a pretty good try.

Other Comments by equivocal20

15. Comment #234120 by kkelly on August 20, 2008 at 10:36 pm

14, I was trying?

Other Comments by kkelly

16. Comment #234121 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm

equivocal20. Peter Singer has written a lot about the morality of eating animals. I'm not sure it's from an evolutionary point of view however.

Here's the thing as I see it, morality takes us outside of evolution. We can make choices that are not necessarily those that a Lion, for example, could make. A Lion must eat its cousins or perish. We don't need to, if we were in a situation where we did, then it would not be a question of morality.

Other Comments by Brian English

17. Comment #234122 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm

I was trying?

Define trying. ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

18. Comment #234123 by GordonYKWong on August 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm

My question is this: Are you a vegetarian/vegan, and do you believe that it is morally wrong to be anything other than vegetarian/vegan?

equivocal20,

I am a vegetarian, have been for over 10 years. But this is due to habitually eating non-meat food for a year. Not because I think it is morally wrong to eat animals.

Put it like this, is it morally wrong for a lion to chow down on a gazelle? If it isn't, why is it morally wrong for a great ape to do the same, homo-sapiens are omnivores after all.

How about: is it morally wrong for me to eat a potato, because technically it is alive and we are distant cousins. Sure it lacks a nervous system, but I do look very much like a potato ;-)

I do think it is morally wrong for vegetarians to impose a plant-only diet on children's developing bodies, as they need the full spectrum of nutrients that occurs naturally in meat and vegetables. We cannot beat millions of years of evolution after all.

Before you answer, think about whether your answer would also be correct if you inserted "humans" where you type "animals".

If you want to play this game, think about if any lions would eat other lions, or hyena eat hyenas? No? Why not?

My point is, humans are very ad-hoc and arbitrary in what we consider food and what isn't. Cows and chickens are delish, cats and dogs are part of the family. Dolphins are kind and intelligent, whales are sashimi.

After 10 years of vegetables eating, I have (we all have) observed that humans have an inate sense of empathy towards other living things that are closer to our branch of the tree.

Fido is like us, but beef is food.
Daisy is one of us, but KFC is yummy.
Caged hens are inhumane, but sushi doesn't suffer like chickens do.
I don't eat any meat, but I like my eggs scrambled.
Eating chicken's fertilised ovum is murder, but this living breathing potato is fair game.

Your will drive yourself bonkers trying to figure out what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't suffering.

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

19. Comment #234124 by Richard Dawkins on August 20, 2008 at 10:40 pm

As Natalie Angier rightly implies, it's the trade-offs that are so interesting. You have to imagine the fate of a gene that made chameleons live through to next year's rainy season instead of dying at the end of this one. Such individuals would save the trouble of another growth cycle from egg to adult. But apparently the price to be paid is that they'd end up with fewer grandchildren, because the investment of resources in surviving another year would have to be subtracted from resources that are devoted to this year's reproduction. Pacific salmon do the same thing, but Atlantic salmon don't. Here's the relevant extract from River Out of Eden:

A young salmon migrates down the stream of its birth and spends the bulk of its life feeding and growing in the sea. When it reaches maturity it again seeks out, probably by smell, the mouth of its own native stream. In an epic journey that is too celebrated to need detailed description here, the salmon swims upstream, leaping falls and rapids, home to the headwaters from which it sprang a lifetime ago. There it spawns and the cycle renews. At this point there is typically a difference between Atlantic and Pacific salmon. The Atlantic salmon, having spawned, may return to the sea with some chance of repeating the cycle a second time. Pacific salmon die, spent, within days of spawning.

A Pacific salmon is like a mayfly but without the anatomically clear-cut separation between nymph and adult phases in the life history. The effort of swimming upstream is so great that it cannot pay to do it twice. Therefore natural selection favours individuals that put every ounce of their resources into one 'big bang' reproductive effort. Any resources left after breeding would be wasted -- the equivalent of Henry Ford's overdesigned kingpins. The Pacific salmon have evolved towards whittling down their post-reproductive survival until it approaches zero, the resources saved being diverted into eggs or milt. The Atlantic salmon were drawn towards the other route. Perhaps because the rivers they have to mount tend to be shorter and spring from less formidable hills, individuals that keep some resources back for a second reproductive cycle can sometimes do well by it. The price these Atlantic salmon pay is that they cannot commit so much to their spawn. There is a trade-off between longevity and reproduction and different kinds of salmon have opted for different equilibria. The special feature of the salmon life cycle is that the gruelling odyssey of their migration imposes a discontinuity. There is no easy continuum between one breeding season and two. Commitment to a second breeding season drastically cuts into efficiency in the first. The Pacific salmon has evolved towards an unequivocal commitment to the first breeding season, with the result that it unequivocally dies immediately after its single, titanic spawning effort.

The same kind of trade-off marks every life, but it is usually less dramatic. Our own death is probably programmed in something like the same sense as that of the salmon but in a less downright and clear-cut fashion. Doubtless a eugenicist could breed a race of superlatively long-lived humans. You'd choose for breeding those individuals that put most of their resources into their own bodies, at the expense of their children: individuals, for example, whose bones are massively reinforced and hard to break but who have little calcium left over to make milk. It is easy enough to live a bit longer, if you are cosseted at the expense of the next generation. The eugenicist could do the cosseting, and exploit the trade-offs in the desired direction of longevity. Nature will not cosset in this way because genes for scrimping the next generation will not penetrate the future.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

20. Comment #234125 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 10:41 pm

From Singer's website:

Q. I've read that you think humans and animals are equal. Do you really believe that a human being is no more valuable than an animal?

A. I argued in the opening chapter of Animal Liberation that humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism, and wrong for the same reasons that racism and sexism are wrong. Pain is equally bad, if it is felt by a human being or a mouse. We should treat beings as individuals, rather than as members of a species. But that doesn't mean that all individuals are equally valuable �" see my answer to the next question for more details.

Q. If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn't you save the human being?

A. Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn't morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something -- that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That's really basic, and it's something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life -- that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this.
Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I'm not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse �" for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates).
That's why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human.

Other Comments by Brian English

21. Comment #234126 by kkelly on August 20, 2008 at 10:43 pm

The way I see it is, sure, we're genetic cousins, but not mental ones. A cow doesn't value its life anymore than a late-stage Alzheimer's victim who chews cud all day long does.

Other Comments by kkelly

22. Comment #234128 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm

kkelly, that ties in with Singer's idea that an animal that doesn't understand it has a life to loose is less likely to suffer, and so can be Euthanized or eaten, than an animal that knows its life is to be cut short and suffers because of this knowledge.

Other Comments by Brian English

23. Comment #234130 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm

equivocal20, you should grab Richard's attention if he's still posting and see what answer he has.

Other Comments by Brian English

24. Comment #234131 by kkelly on August 20, 2008 at 10:48 pm

22, thanks, that's succinct and to-the-point.

Other Comments by kkelly

25. Comment #234132 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 10:55 pm

14, I was trying?

I suppose not...??? Sorry to respond, I guess.

Thanks for responding, Brian. I have not read Professor Singer's work. I'll look into that.

Gordon, that was a very thoughtful, cogent response. You brought up the one part of this debate that is so damn difficult. Since nature is just one big gradient, where do you draw the line?

Dawkins seems to argue (the article I'm talking about is called "Gaps in the Mind" from The Devil's Chaplain) that you don't have to draw a line. However, I think it is unavoidable here. Either you eat meat, or you don't. The line is already drawn for you, you just choose a side.

In regards to the vegetable question, I think the fact that vegetables do not have a nervous system is the main difference. Obviously, you'll go insane (and starve to death) if you say you shouldn't eat your distant cousin the tomato, but the tomato does not really suffer. The cow, on the other hand, suffers tremendously. Thus, if a side must be taken, I want to take the most ethical and moral side. It seems to me that this would be on the side with the least amount of suffering. That leads me to the vegetarian/vegan side. Why cause suffering if it is not necessary?

If you see this, would you be kind enough to weigh in on this Professor Dawkins? After all, it is your work that put me in this predicament.

Other Comments by equivocal20

26. Comment #234135 by Richard Dawkins on August 20, 2008 at 10:56 pm

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 . . .
And the relevance to chameleons is ?

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

27. Comment #234137 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Brain, that was a really good find. Thanks a lot for posting that. I REALLY LIKE EATING COW! However, I really like having a guilt free conscience. I hate trade-offs...

Other Comments by equivocal20

28. Comment #234138 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I didn't know where else to post this. I'll start it somewhere else if you have a suggestion.

Other Comments by equivocal20

29. Comment #234139 by GordonYKWong on August 20, 2008 at 11:04 pm

I think Prof. Dawkins is nudging us to take this discussion to the forum.

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

30. Comment #234140 by kkelly on August 20, 2008 at 11:04 pm

27, So clogging arteries isn't even a blip on your moral radar?

Other Comments by kkelly

31. Comment #234141 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

And the relevance to chameleons is ?

They change appearance like this thread has changed topic? Oh, that wasn't a trick question. I'll get my coat.....

Other Comments by Brian English

32. Comment #234142 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Ah, I've never been there (I'm still pretty new to this site). I'll go ahead and do that.

Other Comments by equivocal20

33. Comment #234144 by bucketchemist on August 20, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Equivocal20

I am interested in this comment, but it is off-topic; if you could repeat your request on an new thread I'd be interested to pursue it.

Other Comments by bucketchemist

34. Comment #234146 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Yep, doing it right now. I'll post it in the forums and then I'll post the link (or tell you where to search). This is my first time posting, so give me a second to figure out what exactly needs to be done.

Other Comments by equivocal20

35. Comment #234149 by GordonYKWong on August 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Since nature is just one big gradient, where do you draw the line?

My pseudo-zen answer: There is no line.

EDIT: You think there is a line, or should be a line, but really there is no line.

*Scurries off before MPhil bring his philosophical might down on me*

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

36. Comment #234152 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Comment #234135 by Richard Dawkins

Hahaha. This story is fascinating. I'm interested in the way the genetic coding can be so specific, in the case of both the chameleon and the Pacific Salmon. (To time the death of the animal so precisely, I mean.) Any thoughts, Richard?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

37. Comment #234154 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Okay, I think that this worked.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=54732

If not, it is titled "Is being a vegetarian the morally correct position?"

Thanks to all that reply.

Other Comments by equivocal20

38. Comment #234155 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Laure, what about the good old antechinus? The male shags itself senseless and to its own death. Thus the landscape is left with only (hopefully) pregnant females and they and any future offspring don't need to compete with males due to their vigorous, and fatal lovemaking.

Other Comments by Brian English

39. Comment #234157 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:22 pm

From Wiki

Breeding occurs in winter (usually August�"September) at a time when there is little food available in the environment, and in order to ensure breeding success, male antechinuses strip their body of vital proteins and also suppress the immune system so as to free up additional metabolic energy. In this way an individual male trades away long-term survival in return for short-term breeding success, and following the breeding season there is a complete die-off of physiologically exhausted males.

Lucky sods. Sex out the wazoo and then no nagging wife or kids. ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

40. Comment #234160 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Ah, of course, Brian - I'd forgotten all about the little bastards scurrying around in my pantry at night. Programmed to shag themselves to death. What a way to go! (But the bio-chemistry of all that is nevertheless intriguing, don't you think?)

Edit: they're actually due to invade my place pretty soon.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

41. Comment #234161 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Yes, quite intriguing. The various schemes that genes employ to continue their existence. How that is realized by the genes.

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #234162 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Tell THAT to David Robertson - he'd probably say that death is their punishment for promiscuity.

Edit: P.S. New blog up on the subject of chiropractors, B.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

43. Comment #234163 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:33 pm

I didn't know that Antechinus were dasyurids. Cool, little devils or Quolls (even little Thylacaines?)

Other Comments by Brian English

44. Comment #234165 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Yep, they are a marsupial "mouse". Cool, huh?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

45. Comment #234166 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I like to think of them as horny little devils now that I know they are related.

Other Comments by Brian English

46. Comment #234168 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Sad about the devils, though, Brian. The facial tumour business could wipe them out very quickly.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

47. Comment #234170 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:48 pm

It is, there is some hope, apparently females are breeding and raising only one litter, but are doing it much younger than if the disease hadn't wiped out older females. Perhaps evolution is kicking into gear.

If I had my way, I'd grab a few hundred healthy ones and chuck them on French Island or something. But it seems the only plan is to capture young devils and put them in zoos. This to me seems stupid as the devils or their offspring won't be able to survive in the wild in years to come as they've always been hand fed. The zoos and wildlife parks have no issue with receiving young, healthy devils at no cost to themselves...

Other Comments by Brian English

48. Comment #234173 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Yeah - I think I heard about a project to actually put a lot of healthy devils on one of the islands off South Australia - can't remember the reference, though.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #234174 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

That sounds promising. I hope they do something like that. As then we can hope to have a viable, wild population if the worst happens in Tassy and we can then take the piss out of the Taswegians for importing South Australian Devils....

Other Comments by Brian English

50. Comment #234175 by Philip1978 on August 20, 2008 at 11:57 pm

This is amazing, I have heard of survival of the fittest but to have one of the fastest run out of steam after a year seems rather cathartic to me - although Brian's antechinus seems like it goes out in a blaze of glory!

I have almost finished reading Climbing Mount Improbable, the reason it has taken me so long is that I want to absorb what I am reading, but this story as well as the salmon's really brings it home that Natural Selection does not have any favourites or likes any waste left over.

I take it with these chameleons, their evolution has brought them to a closer efficiency of getting the business of birth, procreation and death all sorted out? This boggles my mind a bit - Not only do they have to make sure the genes get passed on but they also have to avoid getting killed before they complete this. Having spent 2/3 of the time in a shell that puts the species on a bit of a knife edge.

This brings up what Richard was talking about in the latest Darwin programme - evolution by natural selection is a tough old world to live in. I simply cannot imagine a god sitting up there directing the fate of this animal or animals like it - this is way too complex for a deity to bring into some sort of order, there is too much going on right here on planet Earth for that god to then cope with the whole being worshipped business! Plus it would make that god a bit of a bastard for sure:

"Right, you spend most of your life in a shell, you have to avoid getting killed and find a mate, produce offspring and the die within the span of a year!"

"What do you mean that's unfair? Oh ok, I'll make you swim fast, hows that?

"Next, ahhh Antechinus, you are going to love this one...."

Other Comments by Philip1978