As hybrids and the qualities that they contribute are part of a complex chaotic natural picture, I’m most interested in seeing a section of the original picture in its completeness. For that reason I’ve taken a great deal of interest in a number of re-wilding efforts around the world. Maybe there is an overlooked advantage to the modernization of our ability to use the environment. While population grows the land is being vacated in large regions. Technology no longer demand the labor intensive techniques of old and jobs have moved to the city. What to do with all the thousands of small empty farms, ranges and mines? I dream of the day when ranchers instead of haulin’ their cattle all over the parched western range land at subsidized efforts to produce some beef, when the ranchers become wildlife wardens and people fly in from all over the world to experience the american west, the vast herds of pronghorn and bison and huge flocks of birds. It would be comparable with the Serengeti and drive a tourism and eco-education experience driven economy that would put the current economic picture to shame for being so unimaginative and wasteful.

One of the things that fascinates me about hybrids, intermediate species, and speculation is that you have this branching out going on, a divergence, or a change from the “norm”. I like the examination of the differences between the “norm” and “unusual”, the juxtaposition between the accepted category of a species and the findings that challenge it. With hybrids, the blurring of species distinction and the sort of taxonomical grey area that can occur is of great interest even to someone like me, who tends to like those clear distinctions. To me, these things can teach us more about what a species actually is and sheds light on the seemingly infinite ability of life to shift, change, or adapt. In my opinion, a great deal of biological insight can be gained by looking at hybrids, and surprising or challenging finds are sure to be made in this area.

The complexity of nature is vast to be sure, its workings often incredibly intricate. I suppose for me naming things is an attempt to bring some order to it all. But I do appreciate the endless possibilities. It is indeed one thing that got me interested in science and cryptozoology to begin with.

Thanks to everyone taking the time to participate in the discussion on this topic and the ones who have shown interest. It pleases me that it was interesting enough to some to warrant its own thread, so thanks to Loren for doing that. Also thanks to Kittenz and Dogu4 for the stimulating conversation and posts, as always. I don’t want to leave anyone out, so I’ll just say all of the comments are appreciated and I am thankful to anyone who actually takes the time to make it through one of my (admittedly often long or drawn out) posts.
Anyway, onwards we go, any ideas on my question posted earlier as to which cryptids could be hybrids?

Kittenz and WVBotanist- Great posts. You two gave my fingers a bit of a rest from the heavy typing. I agree with WVBotanist that the definition of species can be a pretty malleable thing and research constantly shifts paradigms in this area. Add to that the fact that you have your splitters and lumpers, and taxonomy becomes a tricky thing to say the least.

Incidentally, I think the program to stabilize the Florida Panther population through interbreeding with a closely related species is generally a good thing. I am not intimately familiar with this particular program, but I have some thoughts. I think if it comes down to infusing this population with new genetic information from a close subspecies or letting a valuable predator decline due to decreased fitness through inbreeding, I say the former is the better way to go. I’m thinking that rather than split hairs over absolute species purity, which as WVBotanist says is not really a clear cut and exact thing, it is perhaps more important for the ecology as a whole to consider preserve an animal filling the important niche of a keystone predator. Looking at the big picture, that is higher priority for me, and that also relates as I said to any hybrid population that has filled a similarly important role within its habitat. If they can do that without diverging too much from the Florida panther’s own genetic “uniqueness”, then all the better. As Kittenz says, I may get flak from some for that, but in my opinion if the situation is dire, desperate measures are called for.

While we are on the topic of hybrids, I have a little exercise for everyone who is interested. Some people have mentioned that some cryptids could be hybrids. I think so too, and the shunka wara’kin immediately springs to mind as a possibility. So what I’d like to see is what cryptids other posters here think might be hybrids. Of course there is no way to be sure and this is purely a speculative exercise, but I really am curious to hear any ideas. It might make for an interesting discussion.

Conservation efforts are markedly torn at this dichotomy; no doubt cryptozoological questions will be in the future. For example, to cite the Florida Panther once again - The infusion of new genetic stock (certainly viable, and not technically a hybrid) to the small Florida population is very arguably a good thing for preserving the Florida Panther as a group of individuals persisting and reproducing in the fringes of remaining habitat. They are, in fact, an obvious umbrella species. But only in S. Florida, scarcely north of Ft. Myers, despite regular telemetry data showing individuals roaming well north of Interstate 4. In S. Florida, a panther’s habitat is largely protected under the endangered species act, by virtue of likely harm to the species. Go outside of this range, but still in areas they are known to occur, and suddenly they are considered hybrids, or escaped pets, based largely on wacky analyses of trail cams, or morphometric analysis of footprints. Or wild guesses. But, as apparently viable individuals, functioning as panthers, they are afforded no real protection. Ask Sarasota County if they know of a panther near their most valuable planned developments. They will probably not have a yes or no answer, even though one has been documented there and no Section 7 or Section 10 review have been performed in that county regarding panthers. Why? Well, what is a species, anyway? How different are we from chimps?

We certainly need names for things in science, but we should never lose sight of the complex and multivariate whole. Cryptozoologists are often those scientists who, in fact, have not lost sight of the endless possibilities.

Relevant to that, I thought anyone interested in this level of discourse is probably also a reader of literary journalism in the style of John McPhee, as exemplified in his remarkable “Annals of the Ancient World”, and in the tradition of that work’s introduction to the literary world, the New Yorker has a very interesting article entitled “Darwin’s Surprise” by Michael Specter in which the state of research on human genetics is examined and there are some really good paradigm shifting observations there. It’s a little long for a magazine article but I’ve found it worthy on the scientific as well as the literate level.

Thanks again, and especially to Loren for doin’ the heavy liftin’. Watch your back and bend from the knees.

Florida Panthers are a subspecies of the puma. The cats that were brought into the Florida Panther breeding program are another subspecies of puma. They are not from another species, so the offspring of the two aren’t really hybrids in that sense of the word.

The Texas subspecies is very closely related to the Florida subspecies, and in fact, before the Eastern puma population became fragmented early in the 20th century, intergrades - animals intermediate between the two subspecies - occurred between their respective ranges.

The Florida Panther population was severely inbred, and was in steep decline due to abnormal sperm and other problems caused by intense inbreeding. A lot of thought was given to the problem before bringing in “outside” animals from Texas, and the pros greatly outweighed the cons. The Florida Panther inbreeding problem would probably have led eventually to the complete extinction of the subspecies.

In my opinion the decision to bring in the animals from the Texas subspecies was a good one. As a matter of fact I’ll go one step further: I am not opposed to breeding together different subspecies as part of a managed breeding program. Two caveats: (1) a studbook must be maintained so that the ancestry of individual animals within the program is known, and (2) Wherever possible without intense inbreeding, “purebred” animals of different subspecies should be maintained as well, and bred with other members of the same subspecies.

I may take some flak for that opinion, but they way I see it, subspecies evolved when animals from within a larger genetic pool became isolated in some way and bred, isolated fron the “parent” population, generation after generation, until differences in type became established within the isolated subspecies. The subspecies, however, is still so closely related to the parent population that it is considered to be part of the same species. Sometimes the subspecies population becomes so small that intense inbreeding is unavoidable when only animals from that subspecies are bred together. Intense inbreeding concentrates disadvantageous mutations, and it does not help the animals individually nor the subspecies as a whole. In that case, judicious introduction of genetic material from another (preferably closely related) subspecies is justified.

I am opposed to indiscriminate captive breeding of ANY wild animal, and I am opposed to interspecific breeding except for carefully controlled scientific research. But I’m not opposed to intraspecific breeding between subspecies when it is necessary to preserve the genetic diversity of the species.

I agree with what some have said that science often involves throwing ideas around and speculating, and as Dogu4 said that the ultimate purpose of science is to enlighten even if it is through argument. There is a lot of debate and disagreement between scientists even within the same field, and as Kittenz says, it is easy to find papers on the same general subjects that are not in support of or even contradict each other. Interpretations of data can vary wildly as well, so I would be surprised if someone could come out and say that they new all of the answers. I know I don’t, and I don’t ever claim to. This is why I feel it is important to engage in discussion on these matters, and through this discourse hopefully shed light on how the world around us works.

One thing I have been contemplating during all of this talk on hybrids is concerning conservation of possibly unique hybrids or ones that are beneficial to the ecology. I have already mentioned the problems that can arise with hybrid zones (areas where hybridization occurs) brought about by the introduction of non indigenous species, also called invasive species. They can sometimes threaten genetic uniqueness or fitness of native wildlife and plantlife through interbreeding and I gave an example of this earlier with regards to the Ethiopian wolf breeding with domesticated dogs. This absolutely happens and it can be dangerous for the native species.

I must mention however, that there are cases in nature when hybrids are of some value and even beneficial. Hybridization can occur for a variety of reasons and it does not always lead to a detrimental impact on the ecology. For example, hybridization can occur naturally when two or more geographically separated species shift or expand their range. This can happen for a variety of factors, including climate change and changing availability of resources. Hybrids of this type can persist for a long time and can even develop unique genetic or phenotypic qualities. In some cases, these types of hybrids can grow into an important part of the ecological landscape and can get to the point that they can no longer be replaced simply by crossbreeding the two original parent species. Another scenario that can be beneficial for the ecology is when a hybrid somehow fills an important biological niche left open by the extinction of the original species.

If I am not being “misleading”, you will hopefully see that hybridization can go both ways, either to the benefit or detriment of the ecology.

So where does conservation come into all of this? I’ll get to the hybrids in a moment, but first of all I think it is important to understand that conservation efforts of wildlife and plantlife in this day and age has become a terrific struggle against human population growth, pollution, habitat destruction, and the worldwide exploitation or persecution of plant and animal species. There has to be some sort of prioritization when allocating the scant resources available for conservation and this is all done with the heavy burden of knowing there is no way to adequately protect all of nature’s biodiversity. Now I fully support the Endangered Species act, but I think a problem can be seen when one looks at the fact that only a small percentage of species on the list for the federal Endangered Species Act actually receive any real federal support.

The problem this poses for animals in general and unique hybrids in particular is that one of the important criterion for prioritizing species is the genetic uniqueness of the candidate species. The problem is that the criterion for deciding this uniqueness is only as reliable as the data available. Moreover, the Endangered Species Act does not in general satisfactorily address the protection of hybrids and some of the issues of taxonomic distinction involved.

So what to do? How can we evaluate the conservation status of intermediate animal forms found in hybrid zones? In my opinion, I think that the issues I have already mentioned should play a role. First, the cause of hybridization should be looked at. If a hybrid zone has developed due to an invasive species, any hybrids should be afforded lower conservation statues, if any at all. If the hybridization has occurred naturally and/or has resulted in unique characteristics non reproducible and unable to be regenerated by the simple inter breeding of the parent species, then I think they should be afforded some protection at least tentatively. As I said earlier, these types of hybrids sometimes have become a part of the ecology or may have filled a needed niche left open by an extinct species. If a hybrid has come about as the result of habitat alterations or predator control measures on an unprotected species (which I believe happened at one point between grey wolves and coyotes), these hybrids should probably not be treated as a distinct population. In my opinion the endangered parent species should be given priority for conservation in this case because perhaps when this happens, interbreeding will perhaps cease to occur and the two parent species will remain distinct and intact.

So are some hybrids worth preserving? Are some worth any sort of conservation efforts? These are just my opinions and I do not mean them to be taken as fact. I am curious to know what other posters here think about the matter.

The official line is that not only can the risk of mutations via inbreeding be reduced, but that by introducing the Texas cats (more accurately, impregnating Texas cats with Florida panthers) increases the breeding female population, thereby more quickly repopulating the Florida panther as a species?

I’m not entirely sure I’ve made my mind up — but I’d be keenly interested to read your views, as well as that of any others.