China Guy, thanks. Just fightin’ that ol’ ignurence, ya know?
What do you mean by “strict biological sense”? Individuals in the same species don’t need to have “identical… characteristics… or DNA”. That’s way too strict a requirement. Generally speaking, the domestic populations are defined to be the same species as their closest wild relative, but you can’t apply the BSC to domestic animals-- it requires reproduction “in the wild”.
While that first part may be true, it would be more accurate to say they are separate “populations”, as they most certainly are considered the same species.
John Mace, I think we’re saying roughly the same thing.
You illustrate exactly the limitation of using the BSC (biological species concept, one of the several definitions of species I alluded to earlier, in case someone doesn’t know the reference) in application to domesticated varieties. Examine all the wild-type wolves you like, throughout the full range of variation and across all extant (or probably even all extinct) populations. Nowhere in that huge range of variability will you find either a Pug or a Dachshund. We recognize domestic dog breeds as the same species as wolves understanding and accepting the limitations of the term species and understanding that, on some realistic and clearly observable level, Pugs and Dachshunds are not the same as wolves.
Each of the several definitions of species used today have built in limitations. Each of them has its own best fit when answering particular questions and making particular predictions-- and therefore in understanding the complexities of the real world around us. None of them though deal clearly and coherently with derived domestics, or cultivated varieties.
But by whatever semantic machinations of naming conventions or biological definitions we wish to apply, the facts remain that:
a) domestics are not identical to their wild ancestors, and
b) vaccine manufacturers are not willing to stretch that envelope.
No, Bengals are a reproductively isolated, true-breeding form. True, a few breeders still have a single ALC to breed with, but the vast vast majority of Bengals are bred 100% from other Bengals and are many generations from the wild. Mine is not so many, true, but he was a special exception, given to me only after we had him neutered.
No, the short haired tabby is a NOT a different species from its wild ancestors, it is a sub-species.
Yes, there is a small possibilty that drugs designed for a Pug could conceiveable not take in a Wolf. However, if so then there is the exact same chance that they won’t take in a radically different breed, like say a Great Dane. A wolf is simply a radically different “breed” (ahough John uses the more correct term-“Population”) of dog. It is as much different from a Pug as a Pug is to a Malemute, but no more so.
I really don’t want to make this an argument. Let me simply say that your first sentence (above) is contradicted by the following sentences. As long as wild individuals are still being brought into the gene pool, Bengals are neither isolated nor true breeding. And this says nothing about the other feline/domestic hybrids using Servals, Margays,
Hit post instead of preview! Then blasted edit window expired!!
I really don’t want to make this an argument. I said earlier that I’m with you in spirit. Let me simply note that your first sentence (above) is contradicted by the following sentences. As long as wild individuals are still being brought into the gene pool, the Bengal is neither isolated nor true breeding. And this says nothing about the other feline/domestic hybrids using Servals, Margays, Jungle Cats and others, nor the crossing of these with the Bengal (done to my own knowledge by at least one Florida breeder).
The Bengal wil be a true domestic breed when the F number of any individual is so high as to be no longer relevant. As it is for other, established domestic breeds. (Anybody know the F number of their Siamese or their Pug?)
Please understand, I’m not trying to tell you that rabies vaccine won’t work in these animals, nor tell you that I’m right and you’re wrong on that issue. I’m simply explaining the reasons that the regulatory authorities used when deciding the question. You may agree or disagree with their reasoning, but the net result remains the same. To repeat myself, simply for emphasis: