Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

thepeanutbutterman t1_is1m2sp wrote

We were so caught up with whether or not they could, we never stopped to ask whether or not they should!

123

Extra-Act-801 t1_is1mg5a wrote

I prefer "grolar" bears, because it makes me think of beer.

101

JustBreatheBelieve OP t1_is1mgto wrote

Replying to thepeanutbutterman (#87,340)

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/magazine/should-you-fear-the-pizzly-bear.html

"We might regard these developments as unintended consequences of intensifying human activity on the planet. Yet in the past decade or so, scientists have discovered that the genomes of many species — far more than previously thought — contain what seem to be snippets of DNA from other species, suggesting they were shaped not only through divergent evolution but also by occasional hybridization. "

"Polar bears and grizzlies appear to have hybridized before. Descendants from past intermixing live off the southeastern coast of Alaska, on the Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof Islands. The ABC bears, as they’re called, look outwardly like brown bears, but their mitochondrial DNA comes from polar bears, as does a portion of their X-chromosome. No one agrees when exactly the ancestors of these bears — one an omnivore, the other a carnivore that specializes in eating seals — bred. But it seems to have happened only occasionally, which suggests to some that natural climatic fluctuations, in the form of advancing and retreating glaciers, pushed the bears together, encouraging intermixture."

"“Biodiversity has developed in a web of life rather than a tree of life,” Arnold told me. That interconnectedness lends strength. “It’s sort of cool that evolution is really messy.”

The scientists I spoke to expressed often a combination of anxiety and awe as they talked about watching animal life respond to multiple pressures with a plasticity they’re only now coming to appreciate. The abiding question is: Will hybridization further erode biodiversity, preserve it, augment it — or some combination of all three?"

7

benefit_of_mrkite t1_is1tdt8 wrote

Pizzly bear sounds a lot cuter than what it really is

34

michael_kd t1_is1u9di wrote

I know of lion/tiger, horse/donkey and there must be other examples. Some people seem to stem from asses as well..

20

demonardvark t1_is1wczb wrote

read "pickle bears" while scrolling and returned up all intrigued. much disappointment followed :(

5

DickPoundMyFriend t1_is1y0vj wrote

It doesn't look too successful unless you count a couple extra chromosomes as success

1

MarzannaMorena t1_is1znk8 wrote

They look pretty disfigured, though. I wonder if they suffer or will suffer from some specific health issue related to the mixing.

1

MPCNPC t1_is1zrm0 wrote

mauls you further south

12

N42Frost t1_is24j8i wrote

I thought they were called grolar bears. Pizzly bear sounds like winnie the poo's rap name.

16

Scalpaldr t1_is2fkji wrote

Replying to N42Frost (#88,144)

It depends on what species the father is. Same as with tigons/ligers, where the difference in the offspring is quite striking. Grolars would be the ones with a grizzly father, which I think is more common so far and why it's used the most. Personally I prefer Nanaluk/Aknuk because then you circumvent the pizzly bit.

7

Wisp1971 t1_is2hhxh wrote

>5. Their behavior is more similar to polar bears than grizzlies

Guess you would say goodnight

6

lionhart280 t1_is2xbwa wrote

I thought I heard awhile back this is because they arent hybrid animals, turns out.

I thought it was found that grizzly bears and polar bears are the same bears, just different colors, or at least are so genetically close you may as well just call them different breeds of the same species, thus it makes sense their offspring can still breed.

23

FatQuack t1_is34nvp wrote

Because who's gonna stop them?

2

xzld t1_is38rql wrote

Cattle and buffalo, offspring couldnt reproduce so they stopped trying to breed them

2

corrado33 t1_is3imbk wrote

> The hybrids were also seen resting down on their bellies with their back legs outstretched, as polar bears do.

You mean... YOU MEAN THEY LAY DOWN LIKE A FROG LIKE PIT BULLS DO????????????????????????????????

5

itstinksitellya t1_is3klc0 wrote

Hybrid Vigour is a desirable consequence of breeding different types of domestic livestock (cows, chickens, etc), which makes larger and healthier animals. And as far as I know doesn’t render them infertile.

And it is well known “mixed” dogs, or “mutts”, are healthier than their purebred counterparts, and they can obviously still have puppies.

Slightly less well known would be that humans and Neanderthals interbred, to the point that every person on earth right now has some Neanderthal DNA.

grizzly bears and polar bears are the same species, but different sub-species. Same for humans and Neanderthals, or a German shepperd and a black lab.

Other hybrids, like a lion and a tiger, or a horse and a donkey, are different species, and their offspring (a liger or a tigon) are infertile.

One question that may arise is “how do you differentiate a species from a sub species?”. Well conveniently enough, a common definition (although not universally accepted) is based on this exact question: if two animals can produce fertile offspring, they are classified as different subspecies. If not, then they are different species.

Note: not a biologist, this is my armchair understanding. Likely missing a lot of nuance.

−2

DreiKatzenVater t1_is3kqdw wrote

I assume because polar bears are still essentially grizzlies

3

rededelk t1_is45q3t wrote

They are the same species, so duh

3

Serious_Guy_ t1_is4vsk7 wrote

OK. We now have polar bears that can climb trees and move south from the Arctic. Cool.

3

KindOfABugDeal t1_is50oxk wrote

Replying to Sea-Amoeba-3388 (#90,639)

It's the 'taught to high schoolers' definition of a species, the biological species concept is outmoded and no longer really used in the real world. Instead, people now mostly focus on genetics.

9

KindOfABugDeal t1_is5kupq wrote

Replying to Sea-Amoeba-3388 (#92,745)

The focus these days is on genetic isolation. Generally, a species would be defined as a genetically compatible interbreeding population, or group of populations, that is genetically isolated from other groups.

Reproductive compatibility is a component of that, in that successful reproduction is important for an interbreeding population to exist, but it's not the sole or primary requirement. I'm an entomologist, and I've always been a fan of the morphological species concept, but genetics has shown that multiple genetically distinct species can exist under the same morphological umbrella. Also, some species that are morphologically distinct may not be genetically isolated enough to actually be described as distinct species. The morphological species concept is still used, but not many people want to spend their lives dissecting beetle genitalia under a microscope when they can just grind up a tarsal segment for DNA barcoding instead.

Phylogenetic relationships are complex enough that they can be confusing for high school and college students, as well as adults without a strong biology background. Couple that with the fairly terrible science curricula in the US, and you end up with broad acceptance of the biological species concept.

3

thetwistedtrader t1_is64fq5 wrote

This article is nonsense. Anyone with a high-school education knows that the offspring of a polar and grizzly bear will exhibit characteristics on a spectrum, with some appearing almost completely grizzly, some appearing almost completely polar bear, and most somewhere in-between.

1

xzld t1_isll6cd wrote

Replying to gumball_wizard (#89,834)

They did a breeding project in Alberta and after the results were attained, named a bunch of small things in the area “ catallo XXX “. I actually couldn’t find much online about it, but the project was in the denwood alberta area, and there is written info about it around that area in the form of information plaques in various locations.

1