Species definition and validity is a hot topic in ecology, if you’re interested there are lots of good papers try searching for Species concepts or Taxonomic inflation or NJ Isaac, J Mallet, GM Mace on Google scholar should give you a good start!

Lots of interesting facts figures and stats to be found in resent papers that I would have thought would act as useful tools in a cryptozoologists armoury in the fight against scepticism. However there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm by many when it comes to “mainstream science”. What is classed as “regular” or mainstream ecology and biology can be as mysterious as cryptozoology, I just wish they would move closer together as opposed to drifting apart.

Take, for example, the chimpanzee/bonobo/bili ape distinctions. While the bonobo now get seperate billing, most of the things I’ve read on the bili ape consider it a “sub-species” of the common chimpanzee.

But at what point does the isolation of a sub-species lead to the development of a new species? For instance there are 5 different varieties of wild turkey found in the U.S. (Eastern, Osceola, Merriam’s, Rio Grande and Gould’s) and they exhibit differences in size, coloration, and habits. However they are all considered the same species. Turkeys, of course, can fly very well, so natural barriers like the Mississippi River aren’t that big of an issue. But what if other barriers lead to isolation for a sub-species. How long before they could no longer produce viable offspring with others of their “specie” and are then considered a distinct species instead of a subspecies.

And, why are some genetically compatible species considered different species instead of sub-species. For instance wolves and domestic dogs (canis lupus and canis familiarus) were originally considered seperate, but now domestic dogs are considered a sub-specie of the wolf and have been reclassified as canis lupus familiarus. This makes sense, as dogs and wolves can, and according to the folks at swap meets often do, produce viable offspring.
However when you talk about coyote (canis latrans), things are different. Coyote and dogs can reproduce however, from my readings, these offspring are almost always the result of male dogs and female coyote and, while these offspring aren’t infertile like mules, it is difficult for them to reproduce. The reason for this (and the fact that the offspring are most often male dog/female coyote crosses) results from the unique nature of male coyote fertility. From my reading (and this is as a layperson, so biologists please feel free to correct me here) like females, male coyotes are fertile in “cycles” that correspond to female estrus, whereas male dogs are always fertile. This makes it easier then for a male dog to impregnate a female coyote than vice versa. When the offspring are born, however, the fertility cycle in the males are “out of synch” making it difficult for them to then reproduce. As a result the animals are practically, if not actually, fertile.

So what we see here is a genetic “dead end” in the interbreeding of closely related species.

While I know I’ve now gone way away from the original coelacanth post, the bigger, generic question that was raised remains. At what point are two related species “different species” and not “sub-species” or regional variants?

I mean, back to dogs, archaelogists a million years from now could be forgiven for assuming that a chihuahua and a great dane were two seperate species of canid, based simply on the morphological difference, even though genetics tell us they are both just really in-bred wolves.

And back to our favorite cryptids, the hairy hominids, what about the tales of drunken villagers impregnating adopted almases, or of BF kidnapping humans? Would the offspring be like the coydog? Like a mule? Or like a perfectly fertile collie/beagle mix?

Just some food for thought.

Now that we know the thing exists, something we’ve known since 1938, it shouldn’t be a shock either to find out that (a) the formerly-two-species are in fact one (happens all the time in biology; for example with birds it happens every year or two) or (b) that they’re two species.

The “earthshaking” stuff’s been done. (As it will have been once relict hominoids are confirmed.) After that it’s just sorting out data.

As exciting, of course, as that will be.

Perhaps because it is presumed to be very very rare and previously thought to be extinct? Ok there are many fish with wide distribution, but distribution often goes hand in hand with knowledge about the species, i.e. common animals are well described! This is interesting because little is known about the species. Would you loose all interest in BF once it has been found and identified?