From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Oahu wallabies (was Re: Logic and God)
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:26:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Note. I have added talk.origins to the newsgroups, and set the followup
to talk.origins. This thread seems no longer suitable for sci.skeptic.
I also hope for some comment from some of the talk.origins regulars.

Max Webb (max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep2.124221.16990@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
: >
: >Several species of insects, some sort of flower (a full description of this one
: >was recently posted to sci.skeptic), some Australian mammal (wallabee?), a
: >population of which that was brought to Hawaii by humans is no longer able to
: >interbreed with the Australian species.  Could someone post the list that shows
: >up from time to time?
: 
: Usually someone cites:
: 
: Sources:  "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
:    Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
: 
: But, the Science Digest article usually cited for the reproductive isolation of
: wallabies does not in fact describe reproductive isolation. I have several
: references I have looked up, but they do not confirm it (I _DO_ have one
: good article describing the mechanisms by which reproductive isolation occurs
: in wallabies - so it is easy to believe the story). However, until we do get
: confirmation, I recommend we drop the claim about the oahu wallabies.
: 
: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
: 
: Regards,
: 	Max G. Webb

Seconded. Peter Lamb in particular went to a lot of trouble to check
out the Oahu wallaby story, and I also looked up what references I
could. As far as I am aware, the assertion frequently made in this
group that the Oahu wallabies are incapable of interbreeding with their 
Australian cousins is entirely supposition, and I would have thought it
is a pretty unlikely supposition. (Disclaimer -- my opinion is that of
a complete novice at biology; more informed guesses welcome.)

The lack of feedback from the most knowledgeable contributors to
talk.origins has been disappointing to me. I would still like someone
who is a genuine expert on biology and evolution to check out the
references and see precisely what can be claimed for these wallabies.
Perhaps Chris Colby would be willing to check the references and give
an informed opinion on what may be fairly claimed for the wallabies.

However, in the absense of more informed input, I'll offer the
following.  The Oahu wallibies are an interesting case of evolution in
action, but calling it "observed speciation" is either inflated, or
trivial.  It is true that the Australian and Oahu wallabies no longer
interbreed; the pacific ocean is a very effective contracepive. This is
the trivial claim, which does not give any weight to the real
significance of the changes in the Oahu population. The stronger claim
that they are incapable of interbreeding is untested.

I have taken the liberty of including at this point a post which Peter
Lamb made a while ago: this extract is a draft which he sent to me
independently. Peter has put a lot of work into checking out this story.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart

(What follows is by Peter Lamb)

: Subject: The Oahu Rock Wallabies -- some primary references
: 
: Jim Merrit <jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu> has quoted the following about these
: wallabies in a number of posts, to the extent that the Hawaiian
: Wallabies are now almost t.o folklore.
: 
: >In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu.  They
: >survived and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population.
: >They are smaller and more lightly colored than the Aussie wallabies.
: >They eat Hawaiian plants that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies,
: >because they evolved a new liver enzyme to detoxify them.  They can no
: >longer breed with the Australian wallabies, so they qualify as a new
: >species.
: 
: >Sources:  "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
: >   Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
: 
: I have always been a little dissatisfied with the references provided
: in Jim's note, neither being a primary source. The first one is a
: popular science news magazine (the other article on the same page is
: "Ham radios listen for aliens"), and the second is rather inaccessible.
: The "Science Digest" reference is on page 18 of the July 1982 issue.
: 
: In April of this year, Chris Ho-Stuart <cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk>
: expressed similar concerns on t.o, and also asked if in fact there was
: ever any attempt to breed the Oahu wallabies with the Australian
: progenitor.
: 
: Neither of us had access to "Science Digest" at that time, and neither
: of us have been able to get any further information from Jim about the
: article.
: 
: Fortunately, I have recently moved to a Canberra, where the National
: Library does carry that issue of "Science Digest".
: 
: The article contains pretty much the information contained in Jim's
: note, except that there is no mention of interfertility with Australian
: species.  However, that may have come from the Saladin / Gish debate.
: 
: Fortunately for those readers of t.o who prefer their sources primary,
: the article also contains the name of the biologist who made the
: claim:  James Lazell Jr.  A bit of hunting through some biological
: sciences abstracts got a reasonable number of primary sources (see
: references).
: 
: Unfortunately, only Lazell [2] was readily accessible to me, and is
: largely a report of a population study of the wallabies on Oahu. [2]
: makes reference to [1] as the source of the claim about a novel liver
: enzyme and the size and colouration differences. Size comparisons are
: made in [2] between the Oahu wallabies and the Australian
: _Petrogale_penicillata_; the Australian wallabies are about 20% longer
: (total length, tail length, hind foot length).
: 
: I would be very interested in seeing any reports of the contents of [1]
: in t.o. I hope to be able to follow up on [3] and [5] in the near
: future.  Sharman and Maynes (see [6]) are mentioned in [2] as
: collaborators; I have not yet had an opportunity to follow up on [6] --
: it may not be relevant.
: 
: 
: Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
: 
: 
: [1] Lazell, J.D, "Strange rock wallabies of oahu. Fugatives from
: 	zoo were progenitors", Explorers J. 59(2), 1981, 66-67 (*)
: [2] Lazell, J.D, T.W. Sutterfield and W.D. Giezentanner, "The population
: 	of rock wallabies (genus Petrogale) on Oahu, Hawaii",
: 	Biological Conserv, 30(2) 1984, 99-108 (*)
: [3] Lazell, J.D, "Evolution on the hop", BBC (Br. Broadcasting Corp) Wildl,
: 	5(12) 1987, 666-668 (*)
: [4] Lauret, M, "The distribution of the brush-tailed rock wallaby _Petrogale
: 	penicillata_, on Oahu", 'Elepaio, J Hawaiian Audubon Soc., 43(4), 1982,
: 	25-27 (+)
: [5] Lazell, J.D, "Kalihi rock wallaby of Hawaii", Tigerpaper, UN-FAO, Bankok,
: 	7(2), 1980, 31-2 (+)
: [6] Sharman, G. B, R. L. Close and G.M. Maynes, "Chromosome evolution,
: 	phylogeny and speciation of rock wallabies (petrogale, macropodidae)",
: 	Aust J Zool, vol 37(2-4) : 351 - 363(1990) (@)
: 
: (*) Referenced in "Zoological Record"
: (+) Referenced in [2]
: (@) Reference posted by Anneliese Lilje on t.o.
Newsgroups: talk.origins