>Two populations of killer whales off the Pacific Northwest coast have clear, major differences in culture: one group hunts down and kills large marine mammals in aggressive coordinated attacks, while the other are relatively docile salmon eaters. Scientists have long wondered whether these two are unique populations of one species (Orcinus orca) or represent subspecies or fully separate species. Now genetic data from a study published March 27 in Royal Society Open Science show these killer whale groups are indeed two distinct species. And there could be more.
>The new research weaves together evidence from dozens of recent studies and includes genetic analyses that confirm that the groups are not just unique populations or subspecies but entirely separate species—and that they have been so for a long time. They likely diverged genetically between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. Newly developed tests based on these genetic analyses can “tell with 100 percent certainty whether [an orca is] a resident or transient,” says lead author Phillip Morin, a geneticist who studies killer whales at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (part of NOAA) in La Jolla, Calif. The new study found no evidence of gene flow between the residents and transients. “There is no interbreeding,” Morin says. “They could, based on their proximity, but they don’t.”
>The researchers have proposed that residents be called Orcinus ater and that transients be labeled Orcinus rectipinnus. The proposed names will soon be reviewed by the taxonomic committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, Jefferson says. If approved, they’ll become the accepted scientific names for the animals from now on.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/orca-groups-with-radically-different-cultures-are-actually-separate-species/
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.231368
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Doesn't distinct "species" imply they can't breed? (I may be wrong, been a long time since biology class)
This seems like the very start of speciation, where two groups of orcas are beginning to form their own groups and mainly breed within them. Like how humans have different traits regionally.
Why don't the two types of orcas interbreed? Do they ignore one another? Fascinating!
>Doesn't distinct "species" imply they can't breed?
no, it implies they won't usually interbreed.
/pol/Black folk still don't understand the concept of individuality and human rights. You can split humanity into whatever groups you want but you can't stop 2 individuals from loving each other.
>Inb4 some primitive anti-miscegenation law.
Good luck getting it done through courts.
Racism never makes sense for oppression. You can compare black and white bell curves all you want but it aint making the left half of the whites bell curve any smarter or making the right half of the black curve any dumber.
What race recognition DOES help is enhancing racial equality by making it easier to diagnose rare diseases and manage physical/mental health predispositions which is what academia actually gives a frick about. Going to 2 century old nationalism by proxy says more about you.
who are you quoting
The voices in xhis head, of course.
Yes, I believe a big distinction is one of them travels with dolphins and protects them and the other one is aggressive towards them but I forgot which
>THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT
>LOOK THEY LOOK SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, THAT MAKES IT A WHOLE NEW SPECIESERINOOOO
evolution is fake and gay
When I saw this, I figured they made the Type D orcas into a seperate species like it's been suggested by DNA analysis.
The residents are called orcas and transients are called killer whales
Happy, now?
They really 'bout to call my homies recti-pinnus? Hell naw, bruh!
where are the stats of how 13% of certain killer whales are the leading cause of deaths
Orcas:
>Different locations
>Different cultures
>Different genetics
>Transients and residents are easily identified
>Different species!
Now blacks:
no interbreeding for 30k years?
Believe it or not a lot of africa is like this but the people that are that distinct are too nice to classify as another species
Now americans…
I wish I could find someone to produce viable offspring with
taxonomy isn't a real science
figuring out who are parents and cousins, siblings, etc on an evolutionary scale is discovering facts about the world using investigation and analysis. who cares if you think it's "real science"
when decisions in the community consistently boil down to arguing semantics (i.e. the difference between species, sub-species, and cultures), it's not a science, it's a thought experiment
NTA
Read the first 3 paragraphs here
https://corvidresearch.blog/2018/09/06/can-crows-and-ravens-hybridize/
It answers what you are putting down much better than I cam phrase it.
Doesn't their being distinct species undermine the idea that they have "culture" at all and aren't simply acting instinctively
yeah
Why can’t we break up humans on similar levels of separation?
Cool it with the antisemitism.
Just playing devil's advocate here but even if ethnicities are clearly defined there's been enough periodic gene exchanges (due to conquering, invading) between them every few centuries. You could probably single out australian abos because they were isolated for 20k+ years if it didn't violate international treaties.
Ethnicities are not races, ethnicities can still be clearly defined even in Europeans who are generally some of the most similar groupings.
Races do divide fairly cleanly into at least 4, although admittedly "black"/African is a very genetically dispersed grouping
>Races do divide fairly cleanly into at least 4, although admittedly "black"/African is a very genetically dispersed grouping
Iirc there are about six contemporary human subspecies or “major races” past ethnographers and scientists generally agreed upon but I think you could extend it to seven:
1. West Eurasian / Caucasoid
2. East Eurasian / Mongoloid
3. Native American / Amerindian*
4. South Eurasian / Australoid
5. Sub-Saharan African / Congoid
6. South African / Capoid
*Amerindians are technically a Caucasoid + Mongoloid mix but have diverged for 20,000 years to become a unique race and clearly genetically distinct.
These are the major races but they can obviously be divided into sub-races and sub-subraces and so on like in regular taxonomy, for example:
2. East Eurasian / Mongoloid
– 2.1. Northeast Asian / Sinodont
– – 2.1.1. Paleo-Siberian (Amerindian admixture)
– – 2.1.2. Neo-Siberian (Amur River origin)
– – 2.1.3. Standard East Asian (Yellow River origin)
– 2.2. Southeast Asian / Sundadont
– – 2.2.1. Mainland Southeast Asian (Fujian origin)
– – 2.2.2. Island Southeast Asian (increased Australoid admixture)
anybody who finds this racist should be barred from scientific research
I don't find this racist, this is just horseshit.
>West Eurasian / Caucasoid
Just as a start, gonna break this one apart:
There are several distinct genetic groups in Europe, which would all be treated differently by others. They all smell different, have different mannerisms, and are adapted to different environments. The most obvious and well known one would be the KITLG gene (blond hair, blue eyes), which has physical manifestations including ***possibly a winter temperature adaptation. Slavs are their own thing too, outside of areas where they actually mixed with Asians, they have nothing to do with Asians, and their own adaptations are pretty significant, including a much larger bust for women that never stops growing. If you, for example, had a halfie of a slav and a french, they would be different enough to struggle being a part of either community.
>Here is a classic example of how different europeans can be treated drastically different from someone outside that group : https://youtu.be/wyLCd6_r0yU
This is barely the surface of it, almost every category is messed up. From an American / western European perspective, It is pretty easy to simplify things into black, white, yellow, red, and a few others, but things get messy once you look up close. Didn't even touch on
>East asians, polar region peoples, siberians, yakutians, native americans, and south americans, all share the EDAR 370A, which is an adaptation to the cold and has very strong manifestation in terms of both form and function. There is a good argument for putting them all in the same group, outside of those who readapted to hotter climates.
>indies and native australians have nothing to do with one another
>There are so many different genetic pools in africa, and all of them fricking hate each other.
>The Arabian peninsula has its own adaptations that make it a candidate for a race
>The Persians were seen as their own race during the time of the greeks and romans,
etc...
I’m going to be honest with you, a lot of that is nonsense.
All of the human race has been pretty extensively genetically mapped and what is written there is more or less what’s been found.
>There are several distinct genetic groups in Europe
They aren’t distinct enough to warrant their own race. Genetic PCA mappings objectively show this to be true. Yes they’re different but also closely related enough to fall under the grouping of ‘European’. You’re also misunderstanding the labeling here. Caucasoid does not mean European, it’s one of the four basal groups of humanity and it includes Caucasus and Iranians, Middle-East-and-North-Africans, and East/Horn Africans (as I explained in my post, they would be sub-races of Caucasoids). Now granted, there isn’t really a modern day consensus on this or anything, but we still have historic definitions that line up with modern genetic divisions so it seems sound to me to go off of those, especially if the alternative is dividing up the French and Slavs and calling them their own ‘races’.
>They all smell different, have different mannerisms, and are adapted to different environments.
None of that has anything to do with race. Quantify how they’re “adapted to different environments” and why this would warrant them being their own race.
> including a much larger bust for women that never stops growing
Lol now this im curious about. Not really relevant but a source would be appreciated
>If you, for example, had a halfie of a slav and a french, they would be different enough to struggle being a part of either community.
That’s the case for all ethnic mixing. It’s called tribalism and it will always be present unless an entirely new group arises from the mixing which a new identity can be formed around. That’s just always going to happen with dual identity people, more to do with culture shock and being different. No clue what your point is here.
>This is barely the surface of it, almost every category is messed up.
Is there a better one you have in mind?
> From an American / western European perspective, It is pretty easy to simplify things into black, white, yellow, red, and a few others
If you read my post, you’d see that it doesn’t stop there and other subgroups fall under the major labels with maybe some admixture going on between them. And as I said before, this stuff is corroborated by modern genetic findings that have amazingly enough proven scientists from back in the 1600s were more or less on point with their 5~ major groupings thing.
>indies and native australians have nothing to do with one another
Not true. Again, genetics show this.
>There are so many different genetic pools in africa, and all of them fricking hate each other.
All of them fall under the two distinct groups of Congoids and Capoids and the wider umbrella of sub-Saharan African, unless you can show otherwise, them hating each other isn’t relevant
>The Arabian peninsula has its own adaptations that make it a candidate for a race
Middle Easterners are a sub-race/species of Caucasoids as I explained
>The Persians were seen as their own race during the time of the greeks and romans
Has nothing to do with anything. Ancient historical perceptions were not always accurate and not proof of anything (even if they were more right than is commonly thought). Persians were also seen as just another asiatic group (technically true) by the Greeks/Romans. Not really their own “race”, but definitely different from themselves
This was kind of just a hodgepodge of stuff and a misunderstanding of my post. I’d more than happily drop a bunch of charts illustrating my points but this is still a thread about Orcas with weird implications so I’d rather not drag this too off topic especially when this is a broad enough topic that it could warrant its own thread but it would probably devolve into shitflinging so maybe not.
hey now, cool it with that line of thought, don’t ask so many questions…
We can be classified as many subspecies but that would be racist
We can. You can tell someone’s exact race and gender from their DNA…
So what are the implications of this exactly?
Different orca populations have barely crossbred in thousands of years
Orcas are chuds who don't believe in race mixing
It revises our understanding of orca culture. We use to think different populations had different diets, behaviours, and habitats ""just because"" but it now turns out that's because they're different species. The previous assumption was that orcas learn their aggressiveness and prey items from their population but those traits are maybe now more genetic than thought. Also this
you could use this as an example of why human races are different subspecies or whatever. but we still have high inbreeding and gene flow so it isn't really the same
>It revises our understanding of orca culture.
It doesn't though, it actually reinforces it. "Resident vs migratory" is a common distinction between whale populations, not just of Orcas but across the board. It's really a difference of shallow vs deeper water causing different feeding behavior and thus different whale cultures. Not speciation in the slightest, unless you think coastal Englishmen are a different species than rural Englishman.
Or they're different species because of that
Haven't they been observed teaching their hunting strategies to their calves? If so, their differences are clearly more than genetic.
So if reproductively compatible animals have different cultures and colorations, they are different species?
Why do biologists always sound like nazis? The orcas are all one race. They just choose to be separate because they are irrationally bigoted against each others diets. There is no ethical difference between killing fish and killing mammals. Either suffering is wrong or it isn't. If these orcas aren't vegan they are just polturd chuds.
one race, the orca race
so there's no possibility they could produce viable offspring?
idk sounds like some whale biologist searching for their 15 minutes
They can reproduce and have before but their cultural differences are a reproductive barrier. There's rarely gene flow between them
>Both Bigg’s and resident killer whales are found across the North Pacific Ocean basin and overlap greatly in coastal regions where most research has taken place (figure 1). As such, they have the potential to interbreed. However, in over 50 years of field study, the ecotypes have never been seen to associate, and there is observational evidence that the two ecotypes exhibit active avoidance of each other, and sometimes act aggressively [11,75,76], leading to the suggestion that they are reproductively isolated, possibly owing to cultural divergence [27,75].
>Initial estimates of gene flow suggested limited interbreeding between ecotypes based on a small number of microsatellite loci [111]. Subsequent studies using larger numbers of microsatellites, SNPs and genome-wide markers for paternity, relatedness and population studies have found no evidence of ongoing gene flow between ecotypes [56,58–60,78,117], though genomic analyses indicate historical or episodic gene flow between residents and Bigg’s, possibly through intermediary populations such as the offshore ecotype or ETP populations [58,59].
>They can reproduce and have before but their cultural differences are a reproductive barrier.
So just like humans then (USER WAS ARRESTED FOR THIS POST)
Resident Bigg's is capcom's brand new blockbuster IP
There is probably something to it. Despite being mammals, the species, race, and culture barrier seems still illusive to us. Mammals, especially ones that developed during the quaternary, seem to have this thing where species is artificial, and they can and will interbreed, or completely avoid mixing, under certain circumstances.
years of racism and bigotry
We cannot stand for this. Force them to miscegenate NOW! There is NO room for racism in our oceans
It is probably less close to something like race or breed, and more close to the difference between a wolf and a coyote. They diverged from a common ancestor 380 thousand years ago, and only pipe one another when their populations get near regional extinction.
>So just like humans then
Not really considering how much intercultural relationships are common between humans.
But if they can produce viable offspring, they are considered either one species or two subspecies taxonomically
Do you consider lions and tigers to be the same species? Ligers can be fertile, too.
>But if they can produce viable offspring, they are considered either one species or two subspecies taxonomically
Not how it works
You realize these are both from the same genus (Canis), right?
That doesn’t make them the same species
A carpet python and ball python can produce viable offspring, and they're not even in the same genus
That's an arbitrary definition of distinct species
Wolves and coyotes are different species but produce viable offspring.
they can reproduce with each other but they choose not to due to insurmountable cultural differences
So human races are different species then?
Yes.
No. The whole human population shares more genetic commonality then a small group of chimpanzees. We as a species haven't been isolated from each other long enough for a different race to come about.
Technically we have, but we have bred into homogeniety. A few tens of thousands of years ago you would still be able to find human skelletons with 36 teeth or different cranium development.
The second point is correct for after humans became mostly homosexual sapiens. What we americans call asians spread to isolated islands, arctic regions, and america, and despite it being 10k years they are still genetically similar
I've got 36 (ish one Molar constantly reemerges and gets covered up), I thought that was entirely normal in those that actually get wisdom teeth
this is just some manipulatively worded phrase that redditors repeat without thinking. black people don't even have the same common ancestors as the rest of humans. do random chimps within a group have unidentified "ghost" ancestors that other chimps don't have also?
wtf orcas are epic??
>RE9 early leak
>underwater resi
>non human enemies
That would be amazing
Boy do I have a game for you… (it could have done with more aquatic monsters though)
Subnautica?
Whoops forgot pic
Interesting. Not sure how I have never heard of it, I tend to hear a lot about capcom stuff.
It’s effectively a side game (still canon) that doesn’t have much impact on the universe and came out over a decade ago so it’s not really at the forefront of talk. Most people are pretty fond of it though, myself included
Species is a term humans made up to make it easier to talk about reasonably distinct populations of animals. It doesn't actually exist in reality, and there's no hard rules like "two species can't interbreed". Geographic or social isolation is good enough. Despite not being totally rigorous, it's very helpful for communication. When being specific in research, you rely on suites of photogenic traits and genetic heredity, not just the species label. This can be confusing or "concerning " to people without scientific training because you lack the mental tools to engage with the actual research, leaving you to agonized over things like species, which is just rough shorthand.
This is entirely made up with no evidence and plenty of counterexamples.
whatever you gotta tell yourself my heckin guyerino
>Species is a term humans made up to make it easier to talk about reasonably distinct populations of animals. It doesn't actually exist in reality, and there's no hard rules like "two species can't interbreed". Geographic or social isolation is good enough. Despite not being totally rigorous, it's very helpful for communication. When being specific in research, you rely on suites of photogenic traits and genetic heredity, not just the species label. This can be confusing or "concerning " to people without scientific training because you lack the mental tools to engage with the actual research, leaving you to agonized over things like species, which is just rough shorthand.
So you agree that from a scientific perspective, homosexual sapiens should be broken up into seperate species