Captive Breeding Programme for Wild Bactrian Camel?

Captive Breeding Programme for Wild Bactrian Camel?
07-07-2011

Fascinating story - a procedure used in the UAE for racing camel breeding in dromedaries could be used to kick-start a captive breeding programme for Camelus ferus.

UAE science could save rare Chinese camel from extinction - The National


(brought to my attention by the EDGE of Existence Twitter feed - EDGE is a ZSL-backed body promoting conservation of "one-of–a-kind species that are on the verge of extinction" - EDGE of Existence :: Evolutionarily Distinct & Globally Endangered)

07-07-2011

Something not related to the camels. Is it already known when the bird part of EDGE comes online. It's coming soon for quite a while now.

07-07-2011

I don't know, I'm afraid. It'll be interesting to see what that comes up with when it does appear, though.

08-07-2011

Interesting.

However, not long ago I read that wild camel breeding programme has too little hay for the winter. I hope basics are sorted before starting with super-dooper technique.

BTW wild camels could also benefit enormously - eg. transfering some animals to other reserves, digging some waterholes, stopping poaching...

08-07-2011

If, as is stated here, domestic Bactrian camels aren't related to/descended from wild Bactrian camels, what were their ancestors?

The Wild Bactrian pictured looks awfully like the domestic ones to me- apart from smaller humps etc. The article suggests their DNA is as different/seperate as that in Chimps & Humans, so how come (unlike Chimps/Humans) they still look so similar if not the same species?

Where are the '20 captive' Wild Bactrians kept?

08-07-2011

They are related - just not as closely as was once thought. The 'not related' phrase is one I always hate to see in this context (not least because all species, certainly all Eukarya, are related, even if immensely distantly).

I don't know if C. bactrianus is descended from C. ferus or if they are both descended from some other common ancestor, but I don't think there's any real doubt they share a fairly recent common ancestor one way or another.

The fact that they have diverged over a fairly quick space of time may be partly due to selective breeding in the domestic C. bactrianus.


Maybe camels think humans and chimps look just the same.

Genetic difference and morphological difference are not always closely linked - it has been suggested that Northern and Southern White Rhinos are distinct species genetically, but to look at them you'd doubt they were different enough even for subspecies. It all depends exactly where in the genotype the differences are. The differences between humans and chimps give obvious visual differences, but the differences could just as easily be all biochemical or internal, or even in the non-coding DNA regions, but they'd be just as significant when it comes to conservation - particularly when it's the 'original', non-domesticated species we stand to lose.

08-07-2011

Thankyou for this explanation (the Camels). I must admit to finding it hard to accept the concept of very similar looking animals actually being different species- such as for example the two White Rhinos- given their virtually identical appearance. I sometimes wonder how correct 'the science' really is in these things? Isn't it just more 'splitting' instead of 'lumping'?

08-07-2011

'Science bit' warning!

The science of divergence as measured by DNA difference is very good. Using non-coding DNA regions you can get a 'molecular clock' as there is negligable selection on these regions so changes only happen by mutation - which happens at a predictable rate under normal conditions. As such, the degree of difference in these regions relates directly to the time since divergence.

As to whether this divergence makes them separate species, it's all to do with what species concept you're using. The traditional Biological Species Concept (i.e. two animal populations belong to the same species if they would produce fertile young if cross-mated) is less used these days, as there are too many cases where it simply doesn't seem to follow what's happening in all other measures of 'specieshood'. Many taxonomists would work from a genetic (based on species being a certain %age different) or phylogenetic (based on species being groups of individuals with a single common ancestor within a certain age range).


Wikipedia actually has a nice description of the differences between Biological and Phylogenetic species concepts, that explains why PSC tends to 'split' more than BSC:

"the difference between the BSC and the PSC can be summed up insofar as that the BSC defines a species as a consequence of manifest evolutionary history, while the PSC defines a species as a consequence of manifest evolutionary potential. Thus, a PSC species is "made" as soon as an evolutionary lineage has started to separate, while a BSC species starts to exist only when the lineage separation is complete. Accordingly, there can be considerable conflict between alternative classifications based upon the PSC versus BSC, as they differ completely in their treatment of taxa that would be considered subspecies under the latter model (e.g., the numerous subspecies of honey bees)."

08-07-2011

This site may be of interest:

Breeding Programme | Wild Camel

08-07-2011

Maybe the wild camel needs a new name, how about 'Gobi Camel' for example? Mongolia and China are a long way from Bactria after all!