Mammalian Hybrids | Hacker News Reader

Mammalian Hybrids

macroevolution.net

23 pointsthunderbong13 comments

No mention of the jackrabbit x antelope hybrid despite extensive and widespread taxidermical evidence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jackalope+taxidermy&tbm=isch

Rabbit papillomavirus (creepy)

https://www.google.com/search?q=rabbit+papillomavirus&tbm=is...

This guy is a geneticist that thinks chimpanzees bred with pigs to create hybrids that eventually became the humans we are today. I love this side of the internet.

One step closer to Manbearpig!

One more reason to quit eating pork!

The pig sheep hybrid is actually mangalica breed and not related to sheep in any way: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalica

Entertaining site, and surprisingly informational in tone, despite the ridiculousness of most of the cases.

I do wonder how much research goes into this topic. The common knowledge seems to all boil down to a single sentence: Only same-species couples can reproduce, except a few cases of same-genus couples, but their offspring is infertile. But how much of this is theoretical, and how much is a result of experimentation (not necessarily full blown Moreau experiments - just creating a viable zygote)? If there's little experimentation, is it because we're just so confident in the theory, or is it because of morality or taboo?

So what are we actually looking at with some of these? Other than convincing looking fakes, heavily deformed offspring that resemble a bit of both species?

What you said - and also some genuine examples, and some examples of common confusion (e.g. a breed of pig that has a sheep-like coat).

We know that different animals have different numbers of chromosomes. For example, humans have 46 and chimps have 48 even though our common ancestor is relatively recent. So at some point there must have been successful reproduction between two apes that had different numbers of chromosomes, no?

> Only same-species couples can reproduce

This “definition” can so easily be reduced to the absurd by simply going back in time in steps to the common ancestor of, say, humans and dogs, and then going up again, to then by transitivity prove that human beings and dogs are the same species, yet they cannot reproduce together.

The classification of “species” is entirely arbitrary, any “definition” of it offered is shallow and pædantic.

I've read his two-volume book on mammalian hybrids. He guides the reader through some thousands of reports, and some suprising commonalities can be seen that are hard to discount, even if specific cases may seem unlikely.

Camel-llama cross is conspicuous by its absence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com