I asked Libby Eyre for some information on modern large mammal extinctions and this was her list in reply:
Steller’s sea cow,
sea mink and Carribbean monk seals,
the Thylacine,
Toolache wallaby and lesser bilby,
the Falkland Island fox,
aurochs (stunning bovines),
tarpans (a type of wild horse) and quaggas (amazing ‘half zebra, half-horse’ animals),
the Barbary and Cape lions,
the Bali,
Caspian and Java tigers,
the Caucasian moose,
Irish elk and European ass,
the Atlas bear,
Guam flying fox (not really very big),
the Arabian gazelle, and
the Wisconsin cougar.
Other readers might like to comment on, and add to this list.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ursus californicus – California Grizzly Bear
Note that of the three Australian extinctions, none can be attributed to land clearing, forestry or farming practices.
The Thylacine appears to have been displaced by Dingos from the mainland and shot by Tasmanian settlers. The Toolache was already rare and was hunted out and the lesser Bilby was subject to predation by ferals.
And I note that some of the species on this list are actually sub-species of surviving species with no more genetic variation than that exhibited by human races, ie, zippo.
But careful now, there’s that lingering Green/Nazi imputation, again.
The Western black rhino was declared extinct on 7th July 2006.
Aurochs ( wild ancestor of domesticated cattle) extinct probably in the 1600 century.
Excellent site :
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/animals.htm
Homo floresiensis – “Hobbits”
Wasn’t Homo floresiensis shown to be a beat up from the skull of a person with microencephalia, the ‘small head syndrome’? The rest of the bones supported the conclusion that the disease was present.
Aurochs ( wild ancestor of domesticated cattle) extinct probably in the 1600 century.
Thank God for that, we have plenty of time to save them then
Cheers and hope we live that long.
Ps. I thought a bit of levity is OK
There has been an attempt to “re-create” the auroch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle
I doubt if they are as aggressive as the real aurochs were reputed to have been.
I have an Eskimo knife with a handle supposedly made from the bone of a Steller’s sea cow, apparently the skeletons are still lying around on the shore.
Scottish Highland cattle have an ancient and archaic look in my opinion, maybe similar to the auroch.
I have seen pictures of ‘recreated’ aurochs. They have deep chocolate brown fur with pinkish horns and hooves!
The only wild horse in the world, the Prezewalski horse, is also extinct in the wild, it disappeared from the Gobi Desert in Southern Mongolia during the 60’s. Main reason was probably overgrazing from domestic animals.
The Prezewalski horse still exist in some zoo’s and re-instruction efforts are made in semi-natural surroundings , for example in the Alps, to reintroduce it in the wild.
The Prezewalski horse is like the zebra impossible to tame.
It has a dark eel on its back , like many ancient horse breeds, which indicates the horses relationship to the wild horse.
I read that the aurochs are most closely related to European domestic cattle , especially the Spanish fighting cattle( they seem to have the same colour and aggressivness, even if Spanish breeders don’t want to have the bulls as aggressive as they used to be for the bull fights).
Neanderthals should be on the list, though some might argue that significant populations still exist.
People,
There is an online searchable index of “New and Changed Names Reported in Zoological Record” offered by Thomson Scientific, which is part of The Thomson Corporation. The statistics offered “are derived from counts of new and changed animal names reported in the Zoological Record, the index to world zoological literature published by BIOSIS, and the Zoological Society of London. Counts cover names reported in ZR since volume 115, 1978 literature onwards.” See http://scientific.thomson.com/support/products/zr/zr-changes/
Of the 502,281 new and changed names of animal species and subspecies, etc., 12,488 are Pisces; 2,425 are Amphibia; 5,098 are Reptilia; 1,922 are Aves and 7,928 are Mammalia. See http://scientific.thomson.com/support/products/zr/zr-changes/group/
Counting things the other way around, we find under “new taxa” that since 1978 we have added 22,676 subspecies and 405,769 species to the catalog of known animals (which also includes rotifers and other critters). See http://scientific.thomson.com/support/products/zr/zr-changes/rank/
Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from the data presented–and impossible as a practical matter as well–to determine which “new names” added to the database represent newly-emerged species, and which represent species which simply went unnoticed for a long, long time.
Offering a list of recently-extinct large, relatively slow-moving mammals with relatively low populations to begin with (low, compared, say, to the population of rotifers) doesn’t present a very clear overall picture of what might be happening with our much-cherished biodiversity. What we do know is that evolution and speciation has historically established a vast biodiversity in the wake of cataclysms far more destructive than the AGM global-warmers would dare to predict.
We know from the fossil record that species extinction is the norm, not the exception. We also know that the emergence of new species through evolution is a very durable fact of life on this planet.
The biodiversity of the Amazon rain forest should be instructive on this point. The rain forest is only about 28,000 years old! So, it is quite likely that a good portion of the “new names” added to the database of animal species actually represent newly-emergent species.
Hope springs eternal, and new species as well.
Schiller.
Hi Schiller
I added 28 new species in one go when Ray Gagne from the Smithsonian Institute and I published ‘The gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of Acacia spp (Mimosaceae) in Kenya’ in Insecta Mundi in 1993 (vol 7, pages 77 to 124).
Like most of the additions that you mention above, these were not newly evolved species but species discovered and discribed for the first time … because at that time I was spending all my time studying the insects on African acacias and Ray was interested in my work and an expert on gall midges.
But while ‘we’ discover new existing species and add them to our lists, it is worth acknowledging the tremendous pressure on existing species, at least in part because of the current large and increasing human population.
The next 50 years are likely to place incredible pressure on environments particularly in Asia.
A simple list of newly extinct large mammals can give an indication of this impact…
Hi Jennifer,
Could you tell me how a scientist decides if a newly-discovered species is actually a newly-evolved species, in contrast to one merely “discovered and discribed for the first time?”
Either way, it’s new somehow. The only obvious thing is how “new” the “discovery” is. I can’t imagine you can tell how “new” the species is just by looking at it, though.
If I understand speciation correctly, it’s a response to changes in the environment–whether due to human population or cometary impact. And it’s entirely possible–probable to the point of certitude, actually–that human development creates new environmental niches for speciation.
It’s easy to count extinctions, especially among big land-roaming mammals, but terribly hard to count new species and likely this bias induces a “counting error” which results in flawed conclusions about whether a true net loss in biodiversity is actually occurring.
I’m a real fan of biodiversity, not because of philosophical or scientific convictions, but simply because I enjoy it personally, quite a bit. I get personal pleasure from the general impression of living in a place that’s healthy for lots of different creatures. If they’re not trying to kill me or destroy crops, that is.
But where I live, agriculture has intensified tremendously in the last 20 years, and at the same time, biodiversity has increased tremendously. So, as much as I like biodiversity, I also like a clear eye; most claims about human impacts on biodiversity contradict my personal experience and the term has become a play-thing for agitators.
Schiller.
Talk of extinctions reminds one of Prof. Norman Myers and his claim that there are 50 species extinctions per day (ie 18,250 species per annum). The IUCN list some 735 extinctions (total). Bjorn Lomberg demolished the rubbery exagerated figures in The Skeptical Environmentalist (pages 251-257.
Hi Schiller
Where to start?
Taxonomy, morphology, phylogeny were my favourite subjects at university.
Insects make great subject from this perspective which is probably in part why I ended up an entomologist, rather than a zoologist, botanist or geologist.
When you get really interested in an insect species, or group of species, you will start to see the morphological difference between it and its relatives and start to hypothesis how these came to be.
Go to a museum and ask someone to pull out a tray of beetles for you to have a look at. They will be dead, on pins, and probably arranged according their assumed evolutionary relationships based principly on their morphology and you will start to get an idea.
Its also fascinating to look at say the one group of beetles from say South America and Australia, knowing they probably have a common ancestor from Gondwana.
I worked exclusively on plant feeding insects when I worked as an entomologist. A species host plant and its evolutionary history was often important in understanding relationships and histories between both groups of insects and groups of plants.
One might see a pattern, form an hypothesis and then test it.
The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins is a good read on the broader subject of evolution and relationships, histories and making informed guesses about relative ages.
I would say we are currently living during a period more condusive to mass extinction than speciation.
After periods of mass extinction, when conditions change again, new niches may form and new species may evolve to fill them.
But I think its worth looking out for what we’ve got!
Hi Schiller,
‘But where I live, agriculture has intensified tremendously in the last 20 years, and at the same time, biodiversity has increased tremendously.’
Are you suggesting that agricultural land clearance and intensive use of pesticides and fertilisers are an aid to biodiversity? If so please supply a peer reviewed scientific study to verify that claim.
Hi Jennifer,
‘Ninety mammal extinctions in the past five centuries is our working figure. We would not be very surprised if, in the next few years, the number were revised upward to 110 or 115 confirmed losses. That’s close to 2 percent of all mammal species on Earth…..Ninety species lost in five centuries represents a rate of one complete disappearance every five and one-half years-for a minimum 7,100 percent increase over the natural rate.’
– extract from an article written about recent Mammal extinctions by Ross MacPhee and Clare Flemming of the Mammalogy Department of the American Museum of Natural History, for the April 1997 edition of Natural History Magazine. I thought readers might find it informative.
The article is available at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_n3_v106/ai_19441249.html
A philosophical point is that I think it’s possible to be natural resource sustainable but biodiversity impoverished. Unless it’s using traditional IPM that need refugia for pest predators, agriculture doesn’t need biodiversity. Not saying that’s good or bad.
The geological record shows millions of extinct specie.
What is not understood is how new ones appear.
We do know that climate catastrophes seem to occur with specie extinctions but we remain ignorant of the specific facts.
Or have we got it all wrong?
Louis,
We can explain how new species appear -its called the theory of evolution by natural selection and was postulated simultaneously, and independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace – the major thrust of that theory is that two or more populations of species become physically separated from each other (sea level rise, climate change), and over time the populations diverge as a consequence of natural selection – certain traits which are genetically determined are selected for or against. The other mechanism which also operates is genetic drift in the absence of natural selection (but I think you already know this).
Of course probably all extant species are also under some level of natural selection continuously which may also produce changes in the genome of the species so that it diverges from its ancestral types.
As for the query by another poster as to whether the newly described species are newly evolved – the reality is that the majority of new invertebrates (particularly those living in the sea) are newly found, not newly evolved. As a former marine invertebrate taxonomist I can recall wandering down to the foreshore all over the tropics and collecting hundreds of new species in a half an hour with a bucket and spade. Many of those animals now have names, but many are still waiting to be assigned names -in fact a visit to many of the larger Museums that maintain Natural History Collections will reveal that some species are still waiting to be given names after more than 100 years in a jar.
The issue is mostly one of a lack of manpower anbd other resources and clearly for much of history the naming of small invertebrate animacules has not been a high priority come budget time. It’s not widely appreciated that a weeks worth of collecting in the field can provides decades of painstaking research in the lab before a new name and description appears in the literature. Its hard to justify that to bean counters.
The QLD Museum currently has a revenue-raising competition to name spiders that have been sitting in jars for years:
http://www.foundation.qm.qld.gov.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=46
This is a little bit off topic , but regarding unknown species only some few percent of the about 500 000 to 10 million species living in the deep seas are known to humankind.
Actually , we know more about Mars than the deep seas.
The deep sea life is also a very great potential for medical cures/science as some species produce anti-biotics as well as anti-cancerogenous substances etc.
Hopefully, the deep-sea eco-systems can be saved from harmful activities like bottom trawling.
Schiller
Here’s an interesting recent newspaper article on the subject of relative ages of species: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/revolutionary-thinking-on-evolution-forces-rethink-on-species/2006/07/28/1153816381532.html .
So how old is our species?
Anne N: Just for information purposes, there is a herd of Prezewalski horses in the Monarto Open Range Zoo about 60km East of Adelaide.
With respect Jennifer, Schiller (29-06-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (29-06-06).
Schiller did metion intensified agriculture and a concurrent increase in biodiversity. Thus far, Schiller has not expanded on this. But I can put two scenarios, from my experiences, to support Schiller.
1.) Intensive Agriculture (Poultry) re outer peri-urban W.A. where zoning requires considerable landscaped (or wildlife) buffers to be established around farm perimeters (on degraded grazing land).
Voila, intensive agriculture and increased biodiversity.
2.) I can cite my case of (limited) agroforestry. I recall the bird counts from 1990. Total on Australia Day = 4 brown quail and 2 black-shouldered kites. Three years after planting (non-enemic) Eucalyptus camaldulensis on the 20 acre block of rye grass, peewees were nesting in the saplings, 4 species of psittacines resident, thornbills, blue wrens etc etc not to mention the invertebrates that go with trees.
In respect of scenario 2, I can’t cite a “peer reviewed scientific study” that has published my pers. obs. Nor do I need to. While I appreciate that you are hosting this site, it is and will always be, a web blog. I don’t think we need to be academic snobs here and should be able to express ourselves in our own way and without pretentiousness (as did Schiller). In the interests of bandwidth, let’s leave the bibliographies and citations in the “peer reviewed” literature.
Thanks Malcolm,
I heard that one zoo had problems with the Prezewalski horses since they were so different to our domestic horse, the herd run right into a fence and the stallion was badly hurt…
Should read…
With respect Jennifer, Schiller (29-07-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (29-07-06).
Hi John, With respect, you are attributing comment from Lamnus to me. You will see that your name is under your comment, not above it.
To all those grappling with whether a newly discovered species is newly created, good luck!
To those counting extinctions, watch the impact of the deliberate introduction of foxes [vulpes vulpes] (and subsequent failures to control them) in Tasmania for a species extinction or two over the next couple of human generations.
This was the last significant safety zone for Australia’s unique small mammals and will surly allow some wonderful peer reviwed papers that describe the decline as we sit back and watch it happen. We are about to see the final stages of the march to extinction of a vast array of unique animals.
Ian, no, homo floriensis is not a beat-up. It was on an island not populated by more recent species until relatively recently, where distance and prevailing currents made accidental landings unlikely and where only the coastal fringe was potentially attractive to settlement – h.f. was found mainly in the forested interior. The species seems most closely related to australopithecus afarensis – “Lucy” from the Olduvai Gorge about 3.5 million years ago. Peter Brown of UNE describes h.f. as a “remnant” population, in an area isolated from intrusion and not prone to evolutionary pressures. In recent years there is increasing evidence that our predecessor species spread across Asia at least hundreds of thousands of years earlier than had been supposed, presumably some a.a. ancestors spread but survived only on Flores.
I stand corrected Jennifer. My apologies.
It should read:
With respect Lamna nasus, Schiller (29-07-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (30-07-06)…
Posted by: John at August 6, 2006 10:39 PM
With respect John, Schiller made a sweeping generalisation about agricultural intensification and biodiversity, disingenuously attempting to link the two as a statement of fact without any attempt to back that claim with scientific data or indeed details of any kind. At the same time he made another sweeping generalisation suggesting that his objective opinion held more value than any ‘claims’ to the contrary.
Schiller’s continued silence on the matter is most educational.
One of the most notable features of modern agricultural intensification is the greatly increased use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Agricultural intensification necessitates that it is done intensively to qualify for the term; frequently through monoculture processes combined with the intensive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides that necessarily reduce the biodiversity of land so utilised.
Please supply details of the Intensive Poultry industry’s bio-diversity projects in WA.
Please also supply details of why you appear to suggest that the River Red Gum, Eucalyptus camaldulensis is not an endemic species of Australian tree and why you regard reforestation of a mere 20 acres, which you have admitted is ‘limited agroforestry’ still qualifies as relevant reference for the second of only two examples in your defense of Schiller’s opinion about ‘intensive’ agriculture.
http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/WfHC/Eucalyptus-camaldulensis/index.html
It would also be educational to discover if your personal agroforestry project involves felling as part of the project. There is a distinct lack of clarity as to how your current largess to endemic species, while providing a laudable re-introduction (albeit on a micro scale) is a commercial enterprise.
Antipathy to scientific studies as academic snobbery and pretentiousness does not enhance your credibility, you are however correct in identifying them as an inconveniently large obstruction to unqualified opinion.
The claim that a blog format, by its very nature is an unsuitable platform for references to substantiated facts is unsound and without merit.
I see biodiversity thrive in the countryside where there is agroculture. Think just about them countryside birds, they would not have been there if there wouldn’t been crop fields and cattle( Sweden)
I have curiously enough noticed sometimes more biodiversity near farms than in our vast forests.
There are many species that are dependant of grain fields etc.
And one peer viewed study was just shocking in Sweden, in a clear cut area there were more biodiversity than in the virgin forest, as a greenie of course I don’t support clear cutting, but it is interesting to observe what happens in the nature.
Read peer reviewed
‘Above ground, natural enemies and pollinators are essential for profitable and sustainable agriculture. Many modern agricultural practices (eg, monocultures, poor crop rotation, pesticides and heavy machinery) reduce biodiversity to low levels and trigger even greater adverse responses (eg, pesticide treadmills).’
http://www.science.org.au/nova/071/071key.htm
‘The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs.’
– Abstract from ‘How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture.’
Authors – Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker
Published in – Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110, Number 5, May 2002
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/horrigan-full.html
‘Among the key findings emerging from all countries involved in this project is that intensive agriculture can significantly reduce soil life forms and therefore its fertility and productivity,” said Mr Huising.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=471&ArticleID=5236&l=en
‘Yet, the loss of biodiversity is alarmingly high worldwide. Up to 60,000 plant species could be lost by 2025 if the present rate of extinction is maintained. The FAO has estimated that, since 1900, about three-quarters of the genetic diversity of domestic agricultural crops has already been lost.’
http://www.greenrice.net/keyissues/page.php?id=3
‘These locally diverse food production systems are under threat and, with them, the accompanying local knowledge, culture and skills of the food producers. With this decline, agricultural biodiversity is disappearing and the scale of loss is extensive and with the disappearance of harvested species, varieties and breeds goes a wide range of unharvested species.
* More than 90 per cent of crop varieties have disappeared from farmers’ fields;
* Half of the breeds of many domestic animals have been lost.
* In fisheries, all the world’s 17 main fishing grounds are now being fished at or above their sustainable limits, with many fish populations effectively becoming extinct.
The genetic erosion of agricultural biodiversity is also exacerbated by the loss of forest cover, coastal wetlands and other ‘wild’ uncultivated areas, and the destruction of the aquatic environment. This leads to losses of ‘wild’ relatives, important for the development of biodiversity, and losses of ‘wild’ foods essential for food provision, particularly in times of crisis.’
http://www.ukabc.org/ukabc3.htm#f
‘Modern intensive agricultural grasslands are very different from the grasslands of even 50 years ago. At this time, many other plants, including different grass species, grew in the fields. Not only were these grasses of low yield but they were also of less nutritional value to livestock. Because the modern grassland contains few plant species, its biodiversity is much reduced.’
http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/ag_grasslnd/biodiv.htm
Hi Ann,
You are quite correct large, dense conifer forests are often a poor source of habitat for rich biodiversity since only a relatively small number of fauna have evolved to exploit them; particularly when compared with mixed broadleaved woodland.
This is the reason for the increase in biodiversity in the study you refer to.
Your comment about countryside birds may apply in Sweden, I will have to research the subject further; but it is not true here in the UK where intensive agriculture and in particular the ‘grubbing out’ of hedgerows has had a negative impact on our countryside bird populations.
http://www.bto.org/research/advice/lowland/lowsection3.htm
Lamna nasus, Schiller (29-07-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (30-07-06)…
Lamna nasus, Schiller (29-07-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (30-07-06)… viz “biodiversity”.
Lamna nasus said (10 Aug 06):
“It would also be educational to discover if your personal agroforestry project involves felling as part of the project.”
You seem to be suggesting I would fell trees to then grow trees. It’s almost like a line from “The Young Ones.” That would be really dumb, Neal.
Lamna, I “felled” (your term) rye grass (Lolium sp.) …check my post. So , NO, I clearfelled big swards of pasture (not trees) and replaced the pasture with trees, on my own land, if that’s OK with you.
Resorting to ad hominems, rather than answering clear questions does not enhance your credibility John.
Why did you describe the River Red Gum as a non-endemic tree?
Why have you not supplied the details of the Intensive Poultry industry’s bio-diversity projects in WA you cited as an example?
Why do you use your ‘limited agroforestry’ project of only 20 acres as an example of intensive agriculture?
Why have you disingenuously replaced my word ‘felling’…check my post; with ‘felled'(your term)?
So far you have incurred expenditure on clearance, planting and maintaining your ‘limited agroforestry’ project.’Commercial’ enterprises require income/profit as well as expenditure.
Are you going to fell the trees you have planted as part of your ‘limited agroforestry’ project?
‘Lamna nasus, Schiller (29-07-06), from my reading, did not link agriculture, pesticides and land clearing- you did (30-07-06)… viz “biodiversity”.’
No, Schiller made a statement –
‘where I live, agriculture has intensified tremendously in the last 20 years, and at the same time, biodiversity has increased tremendously.’
I asked a question –
‘Are you suggesting that agricultural land clearance and intensive use of pesticides and fertilisers are an aid to biodiversity?’
You decided to pick a fight –
‘I don’t think we need to be academic snobs here and should be able to express ourselves in our own way and without pretentiousness.’
:o)
Check again Fish. RYE GRASS. !!! I “felling” (your word) ryegrass. You imply I have “clearance”-d my land. I did not. I did not need to. Rye grass, remember.
“So far you have incurred expenditure on clearance,…” [Lamna]
Lamna, that (incorrect) presumption is yours. Rye grass…please note: no need to “clearance”. Check my post of 17 Aug 2006.
“Resorting to ad hominems…” Sacre bleu!!! seems like more of your ad nauseums, methinks, Fish.
You still haven’t answered my questions, which is an answer in itself.
I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Lamna said “You still haven’t answered my questions, WHICH IS AN ANSWER IN ITSELF.”
No, it is not!
I recall your earlier claim of me being “disingenuous”. (I guess mainly because I was not inclined to Google-off a raft of answers to your raft of questions/wishlist- I already have a job) So, on being disingenuous, I defer to you, the RPL expert on the craft.
Lamna said [17 Aug 2006]:
“You decided to pick a fight – ” [That is so puerile!]
I’m not picking fights, child. BTW, that was paraphrasing, lest you again claim I’m being “disingenuous” (?!!!).
…but I know a cyber bully when I see one. Lamna, you have been twisting words, to serve your own ends on this blog, since I first checked in.
Lamna, I see your “ad hominems”, and raise you, argumentum ad verecundiam!
I notice in an ealier posting the comment “that foxes were deliberately introduced and released into Tasmania” absolute bollocks!
A very intensive and very thorough Tasmania Police inquiry failed to turn up any evidence of importation and release and an ongoing $50,000 crime stoppers reward for information leading to a conviction has gone unclaimed.
The Tasmania Police inquiry concluded that the origin of this allegation was based on rumour,innuendo,gossip and false information.