Transmission is far more likely to have been by consumption of "bush meat" than by sexual act. (And page 2 claims that it was bush meat consumption.)
Love and marriage between other races
- Thread starter Vargr Drifter
- Start date
Transmission is far more likely to have been by consumption of "bush meat" than by sexual act. (And page 2 claims that it was bush meat consumption.)
I guess I have to read the whole thing. Although I thought I had heard somewhere that AIDS got broken down by stomach acids. Anyway, I think we're digressing here (or maybe not?).
No, it's not. The 'capable of having fertile offspring' definition really is the most common one used. It's just that nature isn't all that neat and compartamentalizable. Witness the coydogs that Wil brought up, which are fertile, but with sufficiently limited fertility to cause taxonomers to assign coyotes to a different species anyway.
They're the same species, Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris.
That only causes conflict with the definition if the separate populations are classified as different species. Usually they are classified as separate subspecies.
GT:Humaniti takes artificial intervention into account by saying that different taxonomers draw the line at different levels of intervention and different levels of resultant interfertility of offspring, and that there are consequently various disputes about what is and what isn't the same hominid species.
I'm quite certain that the amount of genetic tinkering needed to create viable offspring between species from different biospheres are way beyond what anyone would accept as evidence for being the same species. ;-)
Intercourse does not a species make. For that you need successful intercourse with resulting fertile offspring. And even then it's not a given (witness the aforementioned coydogs).I watched a show on "Oliver" the chimp that appeared to be a human/chimp crossbreed (DNA showed he was neither) One of the people interviewed said "Those out there who think a human would never have sex with a chimp must not know very many humans." I think that fits here too.
Hans
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
I think Marc would call in an ortillery strike...
Hans, all the texts I've seen , including some recent ones, still use Canis familiaris vs Canis Lupus, not Canis lupus familiaris. It's not a "general knowledge" point yet. F
And certain breeds, the tools just don't fit with certain other breeds... Ever seen a St. Bernard go after a toy poodle? It's messy... if successful, it's hazardous for the poodle. both in the process of coitus, and then the high probability of miscarriage and/or insufficiently large birth canal.
Dogs are a spectrum species - theoretically, all are interfertile, but biomorphological issues make even some dogs non-interfertile.
And the wolf researchers I've heard give lectures are very clear about wolves being a separate species from dogs...
And certain breeds, the tools just don't fit with certain other breeds... Ever seen a St. Bernard go after a toy poodle? It's messy... if successful, it's hazardous for the poodle. both in the process of coitus, and then the high probability of miscarriage and/or insufficiently large birth canal.
Dogs are a spectrum species - theoretically, all are interfertile, but biomorphological issues make even some dogs non-interfertile.
And the wolf researchers I've heard give lectures are very clear about wolves being a separate species from dogs...
I haven't read any of them. But according to Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World, the genus Canis does not have a species familiaris and does list familaris as a sub-species of Canis lupus.
So the definition isn't one hundred percent cut and dried in practice as opposed to theory? I wish I had said that earlier. Wait a minute! I did say that earlier!
If you artificially crossed a St. Bernard and a toy poodle, using only mechanical artificial assistance, would the offspring be viable and fertile? I think it would. This is just another obstacle of the same order as living in separate geographical locations. It doesn't affect the species status at all.
And the Zhodani are very clear about being a different species from Homo sapiens. Are you 100% sure the wolf researchers you've heard don't have some sort of bias that might skew their opinions on this particular subject?
Hans
Interfertility is not a ruleout of speciation, Hans.
Lynx rufus, Lynx canadiensis, and Felis domesticus are all interfertile... but each breeds true, seldom encounters the others, is a distinct population, and each has mophological distinctiveness.
Same is true of Dog vs Wolf in most areas. Dogs don't breed with wolves and vice versa, save in areas where the populations are still pretty similar: typically, villages in Canada and Alaska. And it's readily checked by DNA test for wolf vs dog. Sufficiently so that it's become routine in Alaska for wolf-like dogs to be DNA tested when they become agressive, so that they can be terminated. (Possession of wolf hybrids has been outlawed in most areas of the state, due to their decidedly wolf-type behavior, and decidedly un-dog-like behavior.)
Readily detectible speciation by DNA tends to support Canis familiaris vs Canis lupus familiaris... and the 1994 reclassification was before the big push of DNA cataloguing in Alaska.... circa 2000.
Then again, the exact same issue has recently been noted with Polar vs Grizzly bear. Genetically, the two are not just compatible, but not readily distinguishable by DNA, but are visibly quite different...
Lynx rufus, Lynx canadiensis, and Felis domesticus are all interfertile... but each breeds true, seldom encounters the others, is a distinct population, and each has mophological distinctiveness.
Same is true of Dog vs Wolf in most areas. Dogs don't breed with wolves and vice versa, save in areas where the populations are still pretty similar: typically, villages in Canada and Alaska. And it's readily checked by DNA test for wolf vs dog. Sufficiently so that it's become routine in Alaska for wolf-like dogs to be DNA tested when they become agressive, so that they can be terminated. (Possession of wolf hybrids has been outlawed in most areas of the state, due to their decidedly wolf-type behavior, and decidedly un-dog-like behavior.)
Readily detectible speciation by DNA tends to support Canis familiaris vs Canis lupus familiaris... and the 1994 reclassification was before the big push of DNA cataloguing in Alaska.... circa 2000.
Then again, the exact same issue has recently been noted with Polar vs Grizzly bear. Genetically, the two are not just compatible, but not readily distinguishable by DNA, but are visibly quite different...
Interesting. So we have species of two different genuses that are interfertile enough to breed fertile offspring. Sounds to me like maybe there's a problem with the classifications.
How are their offspring? Are they fertile? What are they called? What's their taxonomic name? I've googled 'Lynx rufus x Felis domesticus' but what I get are mostly papers on diseases transmitted from lynxes to cats.
The big point is what happens IF they do breed anyway. Is the offspring fertile and genetically stable?
Hans
A bit of a tangent
I know this is digressing, but I've been wondering: What is the scientific rationale for naming two populations that are interfertile as separate species rather than subspecies? Are there any examples of a species being sub-divided into two species recently, and if so, what were the reasons for doing so? What is gained by insisting that wolves and dogs are separate species rather than subspecies of the same species? I mean, I can see the emotional reasons for being attached to the nomenclature of yesteryear and to resist changing existing taxonomic classifications, but I don't see the scientific reasons.
Hans
I know this is digressing, but I've been wondering: What is the scientific rationale for naming two populations that are interfertile as separate species rather than subspecies? Are there any examples of a species being sub-divided into two species recently, and if so, what were the reasons for doing so? What is gained by insisting that wolves and dogs are separate species rather than subspecies of the same species? I mean, I can see the emotional reasons for being attached to the nomenclature of yesteryear and to resist changing existing taxonomic classifications, but I don't see the scientific reasons.
Hans
G. Kashkanun Anderson
SOC-13
Well, quite frankly, there doesn't seem to be an established definition of species to begin with... at least not a singular one that everyone can agree upon. Biologists have apparently been at loggerheads over the 'species problem' since before Darwin was in short pants and curls.
While it's true that whether or not two groups of organisms can reproduce easily is one of the oldest definitions of a species, I don't think that's going to be holding water for too much longer; there are simply far too many individual species (and even genera!) who are more than capable of crossing that boundary. There's also the fact that being in the same species is not necessarily a guarantee of reproductive viability. There seems to be a trend in using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variances as a basis for definition, although I don't know what (if any) cutoff point has been established.
Housecats can seem to hybridize with practically anything of a felid persuasion. Breeding them with other species within their genus is downright trivial, and entire cottage industries have been built up around hybridizing them with felidae from outside their genus such as servals, oncillas, Asian leopard cats and others -- the purpose of which has been the creation of viable exotic domestic breeds. The Moscow Zoo used to have a caracal/housecat hybrid that happened completely by accident.
Bison and cattle hybridize so readily (despite being separate genera) that it's a major problem in conservation circles. It's estimated that less than 5% of all buffalo roaming the American West don't have cow genes; those herds must be jealously protected. The reintroduction of red wolf populations into the American East Coast also represent a conservation problem -- due to the sudden debate over whether it's a true species or just a very, very longstanding (as in Pre-Colombian) hybrid of coyote and grey wolf. And about half of the grey wolf population of the USA's Lower 48 have coyote mtDNA. This is despite the fact that, under ordinary circumstances, wolves prefer to kill coyotes on sight.
Hybridized camels and llamas have only recently been attempted, but they're viable. It's not known yet if the offspring are fertile, but those in charge of the project seem to think that it's likely that they will be. That's pretty amazing, considering that the two species haven't shared a common parent in somewhere between 30-40 million years.
And then there's us: Just this week it was announced that every human population outside of sub-Saharan Africa possesses some Neanderthal DNA. And about 4-6% of the DNA of some Melanesian population groups comes from the recently discovered Denisova human species. I know there are some who still consider Neanderthals to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but I don't think anybody is willing to go down that road with the far more distinct Denisovas.
The European red deer and the wapiti (or 'elk', in North American English) were considered to be the same species until just a few years ago, based largely on their ability to interbreed readily. Recent genetic analysis (2004) has apparently trumped that designation, however.
I would chalk it up to general conservatism mixed in with the above-mentioned and ongoing 'species problem' debate. In other words, the reasons are likely irrational, but quite human nonetheless.
G. Kashkanun Anderson
SOC-13
So I take it you devour your meals whole... skin, fur, bones and all?
Interesting. Up here in my neck of the woods we prefer to skin, gut and butcher our animals before cooking them. Sadly, there is a tendency for body fluids get all over the place in such conditions; but it does make eating them a bit easier on the teeth.
I don't use the idea. While psychological atraction can arise, species IMTU have no more sexual attraction then one terran animal has for another; which means extremely rarely.
I think interspecies relations were overdone by Trek because it deemphasized the alienness. When there is an interspecies romance it should be something poetic and have an important point in the plot. Like Beren/Luthien, or Sheridan/Deleen or Spock's parents. Because if they can regularly interbreed and regularly desire to they are simply not aliens.
I think interspecies relations were overdone by Trek because it deemphasized the alienness. When there is an interspecies romance it should be something poetic and have an important point in the plot. Like Beren/Luthien, or Sheridan/Deleen or Spock's parents. Because if they can regularly interbreed and regularly desire to they are simply not aliens.
So I take it you devour your meals whole... skin, fur, bones and all?
Interesting. Up here in my neck of the woods we prefer to skin, gut and butcher our animals before cooking them. Sadly, there is a tendency for body fluids get all over the place in such conditions; but it does make eating them a bit easier on the teeth.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that they would be getting AIDS just by handling the food/carcass? I hear that that's possible but unlikely without open wounds on the hands, but it is the reason most medical personnel wear gloves around any body fluids.
Most hunters don't wear gloves, and frequently have abrasions on the hands from the brush.
Plus, eating the stuff, if you happen to bite yourself n the tongue or cheek, there's an open wound as well. It only takes 1 virus to make it into a cell to acquire the infection.
That comes from treating people like animals; what else could you expect?
JustinInOz
SOC-12
I do not think it is the eating that is the vector for disease transmission. It is the blood to blood contact that occurs while accidentally nicking yourself in the process of butchering the carcass.
There is HIV+ chimp blood all over the place. You cut your finger and open up your blood ciculation to get the virus from the bloody knife.
Vargr Drifter
SOC-3
So it causes infections with Vargr? How does that happen ?
I'm sure not every species will find everyone atractive. I agree I was thinking humans foremost. Humans are proven to be very versalite.
This idea came into my mind when I thought how people can find werewolves and other human-resembling beings atractive in real world, and since in Traveller they are real and solid. how would people think about that now.
I think somebody even in this forum had made love-stories with humans and aslan girls in his games
Is this Rishtatra bad, forbidded thing canonically?
Last edited:
Well, I think it would not cecessarily so, but risk exists, and when those infections (mostly virical) cross the species border, they are quite dangerous (remember the sweene flu, or the ever present risk of avian flu crossing the species border, in owr real Earth).
The risk is for a virus crossing this species barrier to merg with a virus more apt for the host (in real this mostly happens with flu virus, but may happen with others). If so, it adapts well to the new host, that uses to have no defenses against it, with its epidemic/pandemic risk.
In real 21th century world, aside from flu, this is supposed to happen with HIV as it crossed the simian/human barrier (is not clear how, there are some theories), and it's what is avoiding (at least for now) advances in xenotrasplants (trasplanting organs form pigs).
My two CrImps...
Well, I was raised on tales of a ship and a man forming a romantic bond, a alien/human love child (and secret: the Ambassador's wife likes it rough), a witch and android dating, marrying and then having a kid, and so on down the line, so for me, it is pretty much a non-issue. :devil:
Also, I don't have all the modern hangups about what marriage is supposed to be, and have come to understand it in its old school meaning of being a contract for economic, social and other bonds. History really took the starch out of marriage for me.
Thus I tend to lean towards Heinlein and others interpretation that it is a contact. As long as all parties and witnesses are adults and capable of consent, they can bloody well do what they want. (Which now that I think about it means indentured servitude is still around IMATU. I must ponder this.)
Well, I was raised on tales of a ship and a man forming a romantic bond, a alien/human love child (and secret: the Ambassador's wife likes it rough), a witch and android dating, marrying and then having a kid, and so on down the line, so for me, it is pretty much a non-issue. :devil:
Also, I don't have all the modern hangups about what marriage is supposed to be, and have come to understand it in its old school meaning of being a contract for economic, social and other bonds. History really took the starch out of marriage for me.
Thus I tend to lean towards Heinlein and others interpretation that it is a contact. As long as all parties and witnesses are adults and capable of consent, they can bloody well do what they want. (Which now that I think about it means indentured servitude is still around IMATU. I must ponder this.)
Similar threads
