Could this happen to chameleons?
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbah...volution After Introduction To A New Home.pdf
https://science.jburroughs.org/mbah...volution After Introduction To A New Home.pdf
Lizards undergo rapid eveolution in new home...
- Thread starter kinyonga
- Start date
There was a study of the Hawaiian Jackson populations that drew conclusions on their head size, I believe based on diet of harder shelled insects in that particular area. They may be on to something. I doubt chameleons will become plant eaters in captivity however.
- A comparison on head sizes and diet of Jackson's chameleons in different areas of Hawaiihttps://www.researchgate.net/figure...-xantholophus-on-five-Hawaiian_fig3_280741120
PetNcs
Chameleon Enthusiast
Interesting report
Note:
The whole population is based on original 5pairs, rhat were not even guaranteed to be not related. Thus, an inbreeding effect is to be considered as 10 specimens are not believed to build enough genetic diversity to makntain the full grnome of a species (the break even is around 100 unrelayed specimens)
Thus, this changes called “evolution” should rather be explained as microevolutionary genetic shofts rather than as results of evolution.
It hardly applies to captivity due to:
Not comsistent and same environmental factors for all
Ansence of free pattner choice
Imbreeding
And many other aspects
Note:
The whole population is based on original 5pairs, rhat were not even guaranteed to be not related. Thus, an inbreeding effect is to be considered as 10 specimens are not believed to build enough genetic diversity to makntain the full grnome of a species (the break even is around 100 unrelayed specimens)
Thus, this changes called “evolution” should rather be explained as microevolutionary genetic shofts rather than as results of evolution.
It hardly applies to captivity due to:
Not comsistent and same environmental factors for all
Ansence of free pattner choice
Imbreeding
And many other aspects
PetNcs
Chameleon Enthusiast
I hardly doubt it
But I can not exclude, that such shift can happen
40 generations are not enough to
Speak about evolution
It it not reallistic
The explanation would
Be morenin the microevolutionary mechanisms like the genetic shift, which can happen wuite wuickly but fors notnin fact chamge the genome, just modifies the frequency of alleles in the genome
PetNcs
Chameleon Enthusiast
The article is interesting, methodologically strong in statistics but weak in understanding the biology in general.
It talks about Tj xantholophus but then they swap
To Tjj in the disxussion
No
Word about inbreeding, which is extremely likely to play a big tole
Totally ignoring the fact they the original population on Big Hawaii island was already stunted genetically as based on very few individuals and from this crippled genome, single individuals made it to other islands. So, rhe differences might be simply due lack of variabiility of the genome not driven necessarily by adaptation...
Also the selection of the soft and hard prey items is wrong IMHO, as rg Toacjes are comsidered SOFT?!
Rhe ansolutely inacceptable
Methodolohocal failt is the exclusove focus on an unnatural, modofied population amd absokute ivnoring of the natural ones! It would be cheaper and easier to make a good comparjson on the morphology in the natural population soleley based on museum specimens,
Or collecting field data easily from Kenya within dew days only!!! The authors even did not do any attempt to compare it woth any sample from
Their homecountry, which is inacceptable.
In general, I would not pay too much attention to their speculative and not well justified conclusions
PetNcs
Chameleon Enthusiast
It is my privilege...
I do. It wsnt ti be extremely critical but just the few flaws I have pointed out. Ales the comclusions very hard to do.
It is a good indication but no proof. And, the moleculsr clock
Causing mutations, As one of the key evolutionary mechanisms, can not work in 40
Generations. So, we can NOT talm about ebolutuion at all...
Similar threads
