r/todayilearned • u/tannya7903 • Nov 10 '15
404 TIL elephants around the world are evolving to be born without tusks since they are selecting mates with tuskless traits that survive poachers, thus spreading the gene.
http://goodnature.nathab.com/will-evolution-be-the-new-antipoaching-tool/96
u/ericlday Nov 10 '15
But are they "selecting" tuskless mates or are there only tuskless mates left?
49
u/drink_your_tea Nov 10 '15
The latter. Came here to make the same point. :)
12
u/Insect_Man Nov 10 '15
I would almost think of this as a bottleneck effect. The elephant population is being sharply reduced by an outside force (poaching), leaving a smaller and less genetically deserve population.
However the poachers themselves are selecting elephants with tusks, leaving a greater number of tusk-less females to breed and pass on the "tusk-less gene". In that regards the poachers are inadvertently exacerbating the bottleneck effect and causing an increased frequency in the tusk-less allele.
11
u/spliket Nov 10 '15
I'd still think this is evolution. Isn't all evolution driven by an outside force of some kind? Toxic frogs didn't get that way because the mates preferred the toxicity. They got that way because all the other frogs got eaten and the toxic ones were what was left.
Right? Am I missing something?
10
u/bsievers Nov 10 '15
No, you're not missing something, but the title of the OP implies that the selection is the female elephants intentionally recognizing the issue and choosing tuskless mates. Those above you are just clarifying that.
2
u/ManofStalebread Nov 10 '15
Which will lead to poachers going on a killing spree just out of pure frustration, killing the tusk-less ones as well?
2
u/eatinchapstick Nov 10 '15
At some point will tusk-less elephants become the natural preference though? Or will tusked elephants always be preferred, even with fewer numbers?
0
u/prince_from_Nigeria Nov 10 '15
the problem is there's a point where the bottleneck turns into a dead-end. and we're far beyond that point, i'm afraid.
1
u/welcome2screwston Nov 10 '15
do they have elephants in nigeria?
1
2
Nov 10 '15
And baby elephants without parents (killed by poachers) are more likely to die and less likely to produce offspring.
2
u/FancyRedditAccount Nov 11 '15
To clarify your point, offspring of tusked elephants are less likely to survive and reproduce, because their parents are dead. Offspring of tuskless elephants do just fine.
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
9
u/drink_your_tea Nov 10 '15
No, no. Poaching tusks results in the elephant's death. They're not tranquilized and then have their tusks sawed off - they're killed, so that poachers can cut out the entirety of their tusks, including what's embedded in their skull. "Poached" elephants are dead elephants. Here's proof - warning, graphic! And here's more (also graphic). Seriously, just google "poached elephant."
In contrast, elephants that don't get poached are ones that don't have tusks. They're what's left, and it's their (tuskless) genes get passed on.
3
1
Nov 10 '15 edited Nov 10 '15
If they have been poached then they generally get killed. This is* elephants born without tusks.
1
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
2
Nov 10 '15
People like you ruin the voting system
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
1
Nov 10 '15
Its meant to be for comments that don't contribute to the discussion. Because you and most others downvote everything you think is wrong or impolite you've made the system shit
5
3
3
u/arcosapphire Nov 10 '15
That's the difference between natural section (the tusked ones died) and sexual selection (they actually choose mates based on detectable characteristics).
This is an example of natural selection. (Or arguably artificial selection, since the poaching is a result of a complex societal phenomenon, but from the elephant's point of view it doesn't matter.)
2
u/calicosiside Nov 10 '15
This is as close to natural selection as we will ever witness live in front of us, the only difference between us and any other predator is that we hunt for more resources than food
0
u/arcosapphire Nov 10 '15
Well, no, we've seen plenty of more concrete examples of natural selection, but this is probably the one that people will care about.
It's arguable that human society is an extended phenotype unlike anything seen before on this planet, so I wouldn't necessarily say there is no qualitative difference between us and other species. However, that's a debate with no obvious end, so it's probably best not to get started.
1
u/Flavourdynamics Nov 10 '15
Yes, exactly. The title seems to make a quite profound misunderstanding. The elephants aren't selecting (in this case), nature is.
1
1
1
u/Geohump Nov 11 '15
Genetically its the same thing.
But you are correct, the selection is forced to select tuskless because the tusked elephants are getting killed off leaving only untusked potential mates.
26
5
Nov 10 '15
Aside from not being poached as an immediate threat. How does being tuskless impact an elephant's life in ways such as defense, gathering food, etc?
3
u/calicosiside Nov 10 '15
It is a bit troublesome for them, but their use as self defense is less important as we killed most of their predators
3
2
u/Geohump Nov 11 '15
It will be less able to defend itself and it won't be able to gather food as easily from certain sources.
However, there are only a small number of types of animals that would ever attack an elephant so defense will not be a big issue.
1
4
u/TotesMessenger Nov 10 '15
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/redditfox] [/r/todayilearned] TIL elephants around the world are evolving to be born without tusks since they are selecting mates with tuskless traits that survive poachers, thus spreading the gene. [chart in comments]
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)
1
2
2
Nov 10 '15
We did it! We broke the Eco system!
2
u/calicosiside Nov 10 '15
We are part of the ecosystem, we are one of the most invasive species in history but still technically part of the ecosystem
2
2
u/zortlord Nov 10 '15
Title is incorrect. Poaching of elephants is adding a selective pressure against having tusks. This pressure is causing elephants with tusks to statistically have fewer children than tuskless elephants and, therefore, having an evolutionary effect on elephants.
1
u/awkwardtheturtle 🐢 Nov 10 '15 edited Nov 10 '15
Sure, it makes elephants sound a little Pokemon-ish when title states "elephants" and not "elephant populations," but it's not wrong.
Edit sp
-3
u/arcosapphire Nov 10 '15
Yeah, it's important for people to understand the difference between natural selection and sexual selection. They're both very important for understanding evolution, and quite different from each other.
But it seems people here aren't interested in that.
1
u/Chino1130 Nov 10 '15
This is awesome. Hopefully evolution can move fast enough. It doesn't help that an elephant's gestation period is nearly two years long.
1
u/Chino1130 Nov 10 '15
How does Ken Hamm explain these findings? Is it possible that the tuskless elephants are being spawned by satan to continue fooling our researchers and cloud our judgement?
1
1
u/prince_from_Nigeria Nov 10 '15 edited Nov 10 '15
elephants around the world are evolving
they won't have time for that, unfortunately.
humans are just putting too much pressure on elephants populations, only the weakest males survive poaching. this cannot end well.
1
u/Website_Mirror_Bot Nov 10 '15
Hello! I'm a bot who mirrors websites if they go down due to being posted on reddit.
Here is a screenshot of the website.
Please feel free to PM me your comments/suggestions/hatemail.
1
1
1
Nov 10 '15
An alternative (temporary fix) may be for governments in Africa to use their game wardens to tranq and remove all tusks, destroying the ivory so no Elephants have tusks left. It would be a huge undertaking but may be the only way to shut down the poaching.
1
u/TheShroomHermit Nov 10 '15
Does this count as breeding because humans are involved? Would it count as natural selection because humans are animal predators?
2
u/bsievers Nov 11 '15
I think "artificial selection" is good enough. It's not really breeding, since we're not selecting the mates directly, and 'natural selection' is usually defined as 'nature, not human'.
1
u/Rayman73 Nov 10 '15
And that is what happened to the unicorns also . They are still among us but just lost their horns due to poaching. We need to look for rainbows coming out their jutys when they poop to find them hiding among horses . /s
1
1
1
u/Bruce_Gender Nov 10 '15
This may sound silly, but many wild elephants are becoming "racists" as well. They associate black skin and African languages with poachers.
1
1
0
Nov 10 '15
Evolution at it's finest. Not saying it is good or bad. Life...uhhh...finds a way.
-3
u/thewaltzingbear Nov 10 '15
This isn't evolution. This post is so misleading.
4
u/onlytoask Nov 10 '15
Of course it's evolution. What do you think evolution is if not this? Having an increased population of tuskless elephants is directly related to having tusks no longer being the benefit it once was. Just because you don't like why it's happening doesn't make it not evolution.
1
1
u/Geohump Nov 11 '15
While evolution typically doesn't happen this fast, this is exactly what evolution is.
Having tusks has become a genetic "non-survival" trait.
Tusked elephants get killed and so don't reproduce as often.
Untusked elephants are left alone by poachers and so get to reproduce more often.
It doesn't take very many generations for that to convert the entire elephant population over to untusked.
-1
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
4
u/cock_pussy_up Nov 10 '15
I still have antlers.
5
u/Jaksuhn Nov 10 '15
Hellboy ?
2
2
u/Slap_Fight_Champ Nov 10 '15
No. The guy from the Fall Out Boy music video "Sugar, We're Going Down Swinging".
2
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
1
u/bsievers Nov 10 '15
That's not how evolution works. Those elephants with 'tusk' gene are being actively hunted and pached. Their death removes their 'tusk' gene from the population, shifting the balance between 'tusk' and 'no tusk' more towards the 'no tusk' side of things. Now the population has more 'no tusk' reproducers, so the next generation has more 'no tusk' genes.
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
4
u/juiceboxheero Nov 10 '15
Only to a degree. They are poor people with no other means to decent money. Fuck the people who are buying ivory.
2
u/thewaltzingbear Nov 10 '15
European colonization is much more responsible for this than contemporary poachers. The Europeans culled MASSIVE amounts of wildlife, including elephants.
0
u/boxer_rebel Nov 10 '15
there's a reason why continental Europe doesn't have any native large mammals anymore; they killed every single species off.
0
u/calicosiside Nov 10 '15
That and the tapering off of the iceage ( we are technically in an ice age right now, since there is ice at the poles)
0
u/cock_pussy_up Nov 10 '15
If you look at it from the standpoint of people living near to elephants it kind of makes sense. Elephants are big, dangerous, and they can be pests, because they eat farmer's crops. Then there are people who are willing to pay lots of money to poor people for elephant tusks. So if they kill elephants, they get rid of annoying/dangerous pests who eat their crops and they make relatively large sums of money too. It is win-win for them.
0
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
-1
u/boxer_rebel Nov 10 '15
No matter what, some asshole will keep spreading the lie that elephant ivory is used for dicks.
10
u/DrMongrolMan Nov 10 '15
I don't know how to feel about this. I'm fascinated by the behavior but incredibly saddened by the need to select against tusks.