I’m talking the likely less than 50 individuals critically endangered, I’d imagine in 50-100 groups there’s possibly enough separate family groups to avoid inter-breeding, it’s just a matter of keeping them safe and healthy.
Would breeding with another member of the same family group* potentially end up changing the original species further down the line, or would that not matter as you got more members of the original able to breed with each other? (So you’d have an offspring of original parents, mate with a hybrid offspring, their offspring being closer to original than doner?)
I thought of this again last night seeing the Sumatran rhino, which is pretty distinct from the other rhinos.
Edit: realised I may have worded a part wrongly. *genus is what I meant not biologically related family group. Like a Bengal Tiger with a Siberian Tiger. Genetically very similar but still distinct.
In: Biology
They inbreed.
Despite its negative connotation, the notion that inbreeding always results in negative offspring is wildly out of control.
For those that do not know, when 2 people mate, each of them share half of their genes, to create a person.
46 chromosomes in each human means we share 23 each.
Let’s say 1 of those 46 chromosomes in dad are a precursor to down syndrome.
The parents mix their DNA and dad never shares that 1. The child is safe.
But what if dad mates with his sister, who ALSO has that 1 precursor to DS? Well now there’s a chance that both of them could pass it on.
The chances have doubled for that offspring to have DS. However, maybe neither of them pass it on, and everything is ok.
That’s the risk you take with inbreeding.
(This is grossly simplified)
Latest Answers