Rare 'goat-sheep' born on Irish farm(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Rare 'goat-sheep' born on Irish farm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26870598
112 comments
Just a slight correction: the musimones is the inverse sexual partnering - a male sheep and a female goat (as specified in the text you quote). The offspring of the hybrids referred to here as 'umbri' were also written about by Wallace in his book, on the Theory of Natural Selection (expanding on ideas he had at the same time Darwin was coming up with his theory of evolution):
------------
"It has been long known to shepherds, though questioned by naturalists, that the progeny of the cross between the sheep and goat is fertile. Breeds of this mixed race are numerous in the north of Europe." Nothing appears to be known of such hybrids either in Scandinavia or in Italy; but Professor Giglioli of Florence has kindly given me some useful references to works in which they are described. The following extract from his letter is very interesting: "I need not tell you that there being such hybrids is now generally accepted as a fact. Buffon (Supplements, tom. iii. p. 7, 1756) obtained one such hybrid in 1751 and eight in 1752. Sanson (La Culture, vol. vi. p. 372, 1865) mentions a case observed in the Vosges, France. Geoff. St. Hilaire (Hist. Nat. Gén. des reg. org., vol. iii. p. 163) was the first to mention, I believe, that in different parts of South America the ram is more usually crossed with the she-goat than the sheep with the he-goat. The well-known 'pellones' of Chile are produced by the second and third generation of such hybrids (Gay, 'Hist, de Chile,' vol. i. p. 466, Agriculture, 1862). Hybrids bred from goat and sheep are called 'chabin' in French, and 'cabruno' in Spanish. In Chile such hybrids are called 'carneros lanudos'; their breeding inter se appears to be not always successful, and often the original cross has to be recommenced to obtain the proportion of three-eighths of he-goat and five-eighths of sheep, or of three-eighths of ram and five-eighths of she-goat; such being the reputed best hybrids.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Darwinism_by_Alfred_Walla...
------------
"It has been long known to shepherds, though questioned by naturalists, that the progeny of the cross between the sheep and goat is fertile. Breeds of this mixed race are numerous in the north of Europe." Nothing appears to be known of such hybrids either in Scandinavia or in Italy; but Professor Giglioli of Florence has kindly given me some useful references to works in which they are described. The following extract from his letter is very interesting: "I need not tell you that there being such hybrids is now generally accepted as a fact. Buffon (Supplements, tom. iii. p. 7, 1756) obtained one such hybrid in 1751 and eight in 1752. Sanson (La Culture, vol. vi. p. 372, 1865) mentions a case observed in the Vosges, France. Geoff. St. Hilaire (Hist. Nat. Gén. des reg. org., vol. iii. p. 163) was the first to mention, I believe, that in different parts of South America the ram is more usually crossed with the she-goat than the sheep with the he-goat. The well-known 'pellones' of Chile are produced by the second and third generation of such hybrids (Gay, 'Hist, de Chile,' vol. i. p. 466, Agriculture, 1862). Hybrids bred from goat and sheep are called 'chabin' in French, and 'cabruno' in Spanish. In Chile such hybrids are called 'carneros lanudos'; their breeding inter se appears to be not always successful, and often the original cross has to be recommenced to obtain the proportion of three-eighths of he-goat and five-eighths of sheep, or of three-eighths of ram and five-eighths of she-goat; such being the reputed best hybrids.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Darwinism_by_Alfred_Walla...
Better name it Swapfile, because clearly this system doesn't have enough ram.
This comment is perfect, in that it simultaneously gets my goat and pulls the wool over my eyes.
Hacker News has officially replaced Slashdot with this comment.
How closely related are the two species. Hybrids between species of horses and cats are common. Same for canines. But it didn't occur to me that wheels and goats are that closely related
Species don't necessarily have to be that closely related to hybridize. Compatibility is usually more complex but sometimes surprisingly more crude (when related simply to chromosome number) than a linear scaling with evolutionary time. Goats and Sheep are both in family Bovidae subfamily Caprinae. The species diverged around 7 million years ago [0]. Intra-familial (but inter-generic) hybrids are fairly well-known (savannah cats, zedonks, etc.).
Much more surprising is that people have reportedly successfully created hybrids [1] between chickens (family Phasianidae) and guinea fowl (family Numididae), which diverged around 50 million years ago [2].
Note that http://timetree.org is a beautiful service for finding out how closely related two species are (in evolutionary time).
[0] http://www.timetree.org/index.php?taxon_a=Ovis+aries&taxon_b...
[1] http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/2592/is-sexual-re...
[2] http://www.timetree.org/index.php?taxon_a=Gallus+gallus&taxo...
Much more surprising is that people have reportedly successfully created hybrids [1] between chickens (family Phasianidae) and guinea fowl (family Numididae), which diverged around 50 million years ago [2].
Note that http://timetree.org is a beautiful service for finding out how closely related two species are (in evolutionary time).
[0] http://www.timetree.org/index.php?taxon_a=Ovis+aries&taxon_b...
[1] http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/2592/is-sexual-re...
[2] http://www.timetree.org/index.php?taxon_a=Gallus+gallus&taxo...
> Hybrids between species of horses and cats are common.
I was really confused for a second there.
I was really confused for a second there.
Goat and sheep lineages diverged approximately five to eight million years ago[1]. For reference, human and gorilla lines diverged roughly six to eight million years ago[2].
Also, different breeds of dogs are considered the same species (and likewise with cats).
[1] http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/44/91/PDF/hal-008...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Div...
Also, different breeds of dogs are considered the same species (and likewise with cats).
[1] http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/44/91/PDF/hal-008...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Div...
Humans and gorillas? What about our ancestors and those of pigs? I found this hypothesis fascinating:
"A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?"
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
from the article:
" I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan)."
"A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?"
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
from the article:
" I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan)."
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. We've done genetic studies on humans and apes, and we share some huge fraction of our genome with them (99%+, right?).
It's quite telling that in this era of abundant genetic data, this guy bases all of his arguments on anatomical similarities and says nothing about genetics. It's all but impossible that a link like what he's suggesting would have been overlooked if pigs had made any significant contribution to the human genome. (Just for example, we've got all sorts of estimates of species divergence dates among primates based on genetic data that should have given nonsensical results if there had been massive influxes of pig DNA in the middle of that history.)
It's quite telling that in this era of abundant genetic data, this guy bases all of his arguments on anatomical similarities and says nothing about genetics. It's all but impossible that a link like what he's suggesting would have been overlooked if pigs had made any significant contribution to the human genome. (Just for example, we've got all sorts of estimates of species divergence dates among primates based on genetic data that should have given nonsensical results if there had been massive influxes of pig DNA in the middle of that history.)
The champion of the theory attributes the lack of genomic similarity to repeated back-crossing to one of the parent populations. To put it in other words, the droplet of initial hybridization got diluted in the larger gene pool, but the novel genes (and thus traits) remained and underwent selection.
That being said, diluted gene contribution is not the same thing as no gene contribution. To even begin accepting such a theory I would require direct genetic evidence showing considerable horizontal gene transfer between porcine and hominid lines.
That being said, diluted gene contribution is not the same thing as no gene contribution. To even begin accepting such a theory I would require direct genetic evidence showing considerable horizontal gene transfer between porcine and hominid lines.
I saw that claim in the article, yes. I'll admit that I don't know enough about genetics to make strong claims here, but it doesn't sound remotely plausible to me. He wants to simultaneously claim that 1) hominids got so much porcine DNA that they have lots of substantial, recognizable anatomical features as a result, and 2) hominids have so little porcine DNA that it's all but invisible in our genetic code.
I'm not going to say that's impossible, but it sounds like one heck of a stretch. Even just sitting here thinking about it, most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time. We clearly don't have any full pig chromosomes, so to make this theory work you'd have to have a whole lot of lucky recombination events (chromosomal crossover, etc.) that preserved only the precise genes involved in all these "distinctive pig traits" and got rid of the rest. So what's the selective effect that selects extraordinarily strongly for this random selection of pig-like anatomical traits but against all of the other pig genes that would have usually been linked to them?
In short, this is a very extraordinary claim, and it requires equally extraordinary evidence, especially given how remarkably consistent the known genetic evidence has proven to be.
I'm not going to say that's impossible, but it sounds like one heck of a stretch. Even just sitting here thinking about it, most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time. We clearly don't have any full pig chromosomes, so to make this theory work you'd have to have a whole lot of lucky recombination events (chromosomal crossover, etc.) that preserved only the precise genes involved in all these "distinctive pig traits" and got rid of the rest. So what's the selective effect that selects extraordinarily strongly for this random selection of pig-like anatomical traits but against all of the other pig genes that would have usually been linked to them?
In short, this is a very extraordinary claim, and it requires equally extraordinary evidence, especially given how remarkably consistent the known genetic evidence has proven to be.
In general I agree with you, it's an extraordinary claim with less than extraordinary proof to put it mildy. However I thought I'd make one small correction on your genetics.
> most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time.
is actually not true. Sperm and eggs have only one copy of each chromosome instead of two like most cells in the body. However, that one chromosome is a pretty good mixture of the versions received from each parent due to recombination events that occur randomly during maturation of those cell types. Linkage between nearby genes does exist, but it's not nearly so strong as you seem to imply. Even in a single generation inheritance of two genes on either end of the same chromosome is nearly uncorrelated.
> most genetic inheritance happens one full chromosome at a time.
is actually not true. Sperm and eggs have only one copy of each chromosome instead of two like most cells in the body. However, that one chromosome is a pretty good mixture of the versions received from each parent due to recombination events that occur randomly during maturation of those cell types. Linkage between nearby genes does exist, but it's not nearly so strong as you seem to imply. Even in a single generation inheritance of two genes on either end of the same chromosome is nearly uncorrelated.
Thanks! I didn't realize that recombination was so frequent. I'm glad to have a better sense of that now.
I don't see why it's that implausible. You are descended from almost every single human being alive 1,000 years ago. Can you find any significant amount of DNA contributed from only a single one of your ancestors?
What he is suggesting is that a single hybrid made it's way back into the hominid population. It had children with other hominids, and those children would have had half as much pig DNA. They had children with even less, and so on. After awhile there would be almost nothing left of the pig ancestor. The only genes that would survive such dilution would be ones that were significantly selected for.
What he is suggesting is that a single hybrid made it's way back into the hominid population. It had children with other hominids, and those children would have had half as much pig DNA. They had children with even less, and so on. After awhile there would be almost nothing left of the pig ancestor. The only genes that would survive such dilution would be ones that were significantly selected for.
Right, so he's claiming that the genes responsible for this really pretty random list of traits ("protruding, cartilaginous mucous noses"? "Prostate encircles urethra"? "Alcoholism"?) were so strongly selected for that they became 100% ubiquitous in the human genome. Meanwhile, every other trace of pig ancestry got diluted away to nothing.
I understand the idea of dilution, I just don't understand why he thinks that so many random things would survive it to become defining features of the human species. Remember, he's not just saying that 2% of living humans carry Genghis Khan's Y-chromosome or have red hair or something, he's saying that all of these traits became completely universal.
I understand the idea of dilution, I just don't understand why he thinks that so many random things would survive it to become defining features of the human species. Remember, he's not just saying that 2% of living humans carry Genghis Khan's Y-chromosome or have red hair or something, he's saying that all of these traits became completely universal.
"You are descended from almost every single human being alive 1,000 years ago." Um. No.
Yes actually. Here is an explanation why. http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html
It is obviously false. There are many people that were alive 1000 years ago that you have no relation to due to geographic separation. Just because you can analyze something using statistics doesn't make it right. It even explains some of the discrepancy in the description of that chart — your ancestors are not unique and therefore the entire chart is just statistical hyperbole.
I said almost everyone, obviously you aren't (likely) related to remote islanders. However you'd be surprised how much mixing there is between population. All you need is one individual from another population to mix with another and within a few generations he is everyone's ancestors.
I'm not certain how much mixing there was between the new and the old world. However it did happen a lot and it's likely a large number of people do have some new and old world ancestors.
I'm not certain how much mixing there was between the new and the old world. However it did happen a lot and it's likely a large number of people do have some new and old world ancestors.
You are overstating the amount of mixing between populations (and somewhat discounting the mixing within populations).
1000 years ago, people in villages and towns were regularly marrying their (2,3,4) cousins and rarely marrying people from 'different lands'.
Another way to look at it: for 1 person to become the ancestor of just several thousand people takes 'a few generations'. Getting to whole populations takes lots of generations.
1000 years ago, people in villages and towns were regularly marrying their (2,3,4) cousins and rarely marrying people from 'different lands'.
Another way to look at it: for 1 person to become the ancestor of just several thousand people takes 'a few generations'. Getting to whole populations takes lots of generations.
I submitted the article I link in a subthread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539143
The author posted some replies, one of which points to this article:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemag...
That puts it at about 3400 years (the article gets the number from some paper on the topic).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539143
The author posted some replies, one of which points to this article:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemag...
That puts it at about 3400 years (the article gets the number from some paper on the topic).
"You are descended from almost every single human being alive 1,000 years ago."
Not exactly 1,000 years, but more like 120-135,000 years for the male line [1], and 200,000 years for the female line [2].
[1] "Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females " dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1237619
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Mitoch...
Not exactly 1,000 years, but more like 120-135,000 years for the male line [1], and 200,000 years for the female line [2].
[1] "Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females " dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1237619
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Mitoch...
No it's much closer to 1,000 years. Every generation the number of possible ancestors you have doubles. 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents. Within a few generations back, you have literally millions of ancestors.
Doesn't that assume no overlap? It seems like the odds of 2^n unique ancestors would be pretty low by the time you get to 10.
This seems like a reasonable discussion of the issue:
http://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic...
After ~15 generations your genealogical ancestors aren't all that likely to have contributed much to your DNA.
http://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic...
After ~15 generations your genealogical ancestors aren't all that likely to have contributed much to your DNA.
Evolutionary geneticists don't trace individual lineages that far out, nor would they need to. The hypothesis under question is that the porcine/proto-hominind cross provided a variety of important, wide-acting traits that all humans share. That means that every human has them, and that every chimpanzee doesn't have them. That would show up in a comparative genomic assay.
"You are descended from almost every single human being alive 1,000 years ago."
If a generation is about 30 years then you will have close to 33 ancestors lines in your family tree over those 1000 years. That makes 2^33 ancestors or 10 billion, that's impressive (well there is probably a large overlap)
If a generation is about 30 years then you will have close to 33 ancestors lines in your family tree over those 1000 years. That makes 2^33 ancestors or 10 billion, that's impressive (well there is probably a large overlap)
Yes, but remember the "bottleneck" from 70,000 years ago, when the human race was nearly wiped out. At that time, because of a nuclear winter brought on by a volcanic supereruption, there may have been fewer than 10,000 humans in the entire world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
So, based on that, we're descended from fewer people in the past than most people realize. Another way to say it is that most of our ancestors were cousins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
So, based on that, we're descended from fewer people in the past than most people realize. Another way to say it is that most of our ancestors were cousins.
That overlap is more than large, it's actually the most important factor in the calculation. You only need to go back about 6 generations (200 years), and there is practically no interchange between geographically separated groups, which means that I probably don't have any genes from some random asian living 1000 years ago (although we both almost certainly share genes that we inherited from some far more ancient common ancestor).
Eventually though, sufficient data will fall from the collisions between example-fed discussion and informed search to deliver an elevated consensus. One particular approach recommended McCarthy is in silico chromosome painting of the human genome with random pig and chimp sequences in an effort to find hotspots of similarity to pig.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evi...
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evi...
Basically, no.
While goats and sheep diverged 8 million years ago, humans/chimps and pigs diverged 80 million years ago. The last time a proto-chimp got with a proto-pig, the T-Rex hadn't evolved yet. While goats and sheep have a difference of 6 chromosomes, chimps and pigs have a difference of 10. McCarthy, despite being a geneticist, makes his absurd claim without even discussing the genetic difficulties.
What little similarity there is between humans and pigs is simply a case of convergent evolution.
While goats and sheep diverged 8 million years ago, humans/chimps and pigs diverged 80 million years ago. The last time a proto-chimp got with a proto-pig, the T-Rex hadn't evolved yet. While goats and sheep have a difference of 6 chromosomes, chimps and pigs have a difference of 10. McCarthy, despite being a geneticist, makes his absurd claim without even discussing the genetic difficulties.
What little similarity there is between humans and pigs is simply a case of convergent evolution.
I think he's saying relatively modern chimps and pigs may have had a hybridization event.
Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus. A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature. This example is not offered as any kind of proof. But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird. And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today).
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evi...
Another argument was that the morphological distance, or genetic differences besides chromosome number, are just too great. Most of us are familiar with the platypus. A paper published in Nature a few years ago demonstrated that the platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes, and therefore that the vastly different bird and mammal sex chromosome systems have been successfully bridged by this creature. This example is not offered as any kind of proof. But it does suggest that sometime, long ago, a cross occurred that would have been even more distant than that between a chimpanzee and a pig – one between a otter-like mammal and a duck-like bird. And if such was the case, the hybrids from the cross must have been able to produce offspring (otherwise they would have died out, and the platypus would not exist today).
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evi...
No.
The platypus is not a bird/reptile hybrid. That is a wild misinterpretation of a genome study which happened a few years back.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/10/the-platypus-g...
The platypus is not a bird/reptile hybrid. That is a wild misinterpretation of a genome study which happened a few years back.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/10/the-platypus-g...
<not sarcasm>Should I take from this that phys.org is not a particularly reliable source?</not sarcasm>
I am not particularly familiar with phys.org. Briefly scanning it, it looks pretty normal.
Most likely it's just someone stepping outside their wheelhouse. I mean, I trust PZ on biology, but I wouldn't incredulously accept legal advice from him. So, maybe reliable for physics/space, but unreliable for biology is my guess?
Most likely it's just someone stepping outside their wheelhouse. I mean, I trust PZ on biology, but I wouldn't incredulously accept legal advice from him. So, maybe reliable for physics/space, but unreliable for biology is my guess?
That hypothesis is completely wrong:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypot...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/the-mfap-hypot...
There isn't enough attention to this in my opinion. When you research it, everything lines up so nice.
I believe GP meant canine (wolves and dogs) and felines (tiger and lion) which interbreed "frequently".
Wolves and dogs are the same species too, AFAIK
They have the same genus (Canis), but their species are different.
Different subspecies. Considered the same species though (Canis lupus.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
Are you implying that the story "Facts Concerning the
Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" By H. P. Lovecraft is not in fact so far-fetched at all? That such a thing is possible?
> Hybrids between species of horses and cats are common
Yes, they're called "hats" or "corses".
Yes, they're called "hats" or "corses".
Indeed not, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_hybrid They're six chromosomes out from each other, to begin with.
Dogs are one species. Their variation is a result of long-term purposeful breeding and a "slippery" genome.
Similar deal (not so much the slippery genome) for horses and housecats. I think you're confusing breeds with species.
Similar deal (not so much the slippery genome) for horses and housecats. I think you're confusing breeds with species.
[deleted]
Goat + Wheel = Gwheel, Whoat ?
> the farmer said he was not planning to send the geep for slaughter
I'm ignorant about most things farm-related, but maybe someone knows what rules apply to meat coming from unusual mixes? I assume it's harmless to eat it, but would it be legal to sell?
I'm ignorant about most things farm-related, but maybe someone knows what rules apply to meat coming from unusual mixes? I assume it's harmless to eat it, but would it be legal to sell?
My first thought was, "I hope it isn't sterile." If goat/sheep hybrids are this rare then a fertile "bridge" (even in one direction) would be of some scientific (and agricultural) interest.
Food is a distant second...
Food is a distant second...
It might also be of benefit to introduce it's genes back into the population. Diversity is usually good and maybe goats have some genes that are beneficial to sheep or vice versa. As far as I know, most hybrids are sterile though.
It's almost certainly sterile. Look at what happens to mules, and horses and donkeys appear to have diverged closer in time than goats and sheep.
While mules are overwhelmingly sterile, I thought it was neat to learn that there are instances of fertile female mules, though no male ones are on record as having been fertile.
With fertile female individuals I'm amazed (would be amazed if?) people haven't made an effort to breed and maintain animals right along the spectrum (or at least one half of it.)
There are only 60 known instances of fertile female mules in the last 500 years, according to Wikipedia, and they don't breed true - their offspring appear phenotypically to be pure donkeys or pure horses.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_hybrid
quoting: "Darwinism – An Exposition Of The Theory Of Natural Selection With Some Of Its Applications (1889)"
"It has been long known to shepherds, though questioned by naturalists, that the progeny of the cross between the sheep and goat is fertile. Breeds of this mixed race are numerous in the north of Europe.""
quoting: "Darwinism – An Exposition Of The Theory Of Natural Selection With Some Of Its Applications (1889)"
"It has been long known to shepherds, though questioned by naturalists, that the progeny of the cross between the sheep and goat is fertile. Breeds of this mixed race are numerous in the north of Europe.""
I wonder what it tastes like. I love the taste of lamb but cannot stand the taste (and smell!) of goat meat even though it's a delicacy where I'm from.
Bizarrely enough, this article caused me to lose an argument with my sister-in-law... Months ago she insisted such a hybrid would be called a 'geep.' I agreed with the general idea, but felt it would be better if it were spelled 'gheep'...
For the record, I still think my spelling is better...
For the record, I still think my spelling is better...
While I find this fascinating, it does seem a bit curious to post this in a hacker forum. I was half way expecting to read that the farmer had been "bio-hacking" trying to come up with a healthy hybrid.
The only sins on Hacker News are being uninteresting and being rude. If PG can post about the margins of medieval manuscripts, anything interesting goes.
Given that the top comment in the thread is a relevant (and deservedly upvoted) quotation from a late-Renaissance text, I'd say we're doing pretty well here.
Given that the top comment in the thread is a relevant (and deservedly upvoted) quotation from a late-Renaissance text, I'd say we're doing pretty well here.
Actually the team that cloned "Dolly" the sheep in the 90s was making sheep-goat chimeras in the 80s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_chimera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_chimera
>On-Topic[1]: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
I certainly found it interesting that this sort of thing is possible in nature. Other's mileage may vary but that's what the voting process is for, no?
[1]http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I certainly found it interesting that this sort of thing is possible in nature. Other's mileage may vary but that's what the voting process is for, no?
[1]http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"bio-hacking": is this what we call genetic engineering now?
Hacking != Engineering
Unless you go by recent popular usage, in which case every possible interaction with anything that is not specifically laid out in that thing's accompanying instruction manual is now considered "hacking." Case in point: Life has no instructions, so people happily call almost anything "life hacking."
Other than sharing my name with said farmer, I agree a bit curious to post here on HN...
Many discoveries were based on unintentional or natural accidents. One could calls these hacks since they broke the conventional "usage pattern." Not necessarily for this case but in situations like these.
You mean expecting a guman?
"Paddy Murphy"
theres no way this is real, right?
theres no way this is real, right?
There's a Patrick Murphy on this very thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533877 , you insensitive clod. ;P
Yes, Paddy is a common Irish shortening of Patrick. Murphy is a classic surname.
It's totally real.
Leave generic irish names out of this :P ;)
I hope people actually listen to the interview, some of the quoting can be taken out of context.
I'm from an Irish framing background, and wasa little scared of the way this might be taken. I think it is worthy of hn, looking at things from a difference prospective but i quietly hope it doesn't rank high.
All I could think was what does it taste like..
Seriously interesting though how closely related are the two species?
Seriously interesting though how closely related are the two species?
My understanding is that human-neanderthal interbreeding rarely resulted in viable offspring (though some did, and is where blonde/ginger hair and blue eyes come from in modern humans).
Is that similar here? Are there traits in modern goats or sheep that came from the other?
Is that similar here? Are there traits in modern goats or sheep that came from the other?
Blue eyes is a more recent mutation [1]. Blonde hair has appeared independently several times [2].
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.ht...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/science/another-genetic-qu...
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.ht...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/science/another-genetic-qu...
As a Scot I might be a bit touchy about this (Scots have the highest proportion of redheads and I carry the gene even though my hair and eyes are very dark):
"A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in modern humans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Origins
"A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in modern humans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Origins
...where do you have that "understanding" from?! Are there any actual information about the 'Homo sapiens sapiens' <-> 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis' contact and relationship or are you just spreading someone's wild guesses?
Most Europeans have Neanderthal genes.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/neandertals-gave-europe...
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/neandertals-gave-europe...
[deleted]
@lacero - you are hell-banned
Lacero is not "hell-banned" or any other kind of banned. Lacero's comment came from an IP that had been caught by a spam filter. I just unbanned the IP and unkilled the relevant comments.
Please don't claim things on or about Hacker News that you can't possibly know are true. Concerns about dead comments and anything else about HN can be sent to [email protected].
Edit: I deleted things that were too harsh.
Please don't claim things on or about Hacker News that you can't possibly know are true. Concerns about dead comments and anything else about HN can be sent to [email protected].
Edit: I deleted things that were too harsh.
I guess we've just found out how we're going to be treated by the new moderators.
eps was obviously trying to be helpful to lacero. If lacero was hell-banned, he wouldn't know it to email you, would he? And for his trouble he gets this mean reply from you.
eps was obviously trying to be helpful to lacero. If lacero was hell-banned, he wouldn't know it to email you, would he? And for his trouble he gets this mean reply from you.
I try hard not to be mean. If you'd care to suggest how to improve my wording, I'd be happy to. It's possible that my frustration after a year and a half of reading such comments as eps's with no ability to reply to them leaked through.
A better way for eps to help lacero, if that's all he or she wanted to do, would have been to email and ask us to check why lacero's comment was dead. We would have replied with a thank-you note saying what the reason was and that we had restored all the comments in question. But it doesn't feel to me like helping others is the only agenda going on with comments like eps's, which as you may know are something of a cottage industry on HN.
How you're "going to be treated by the new moderators" is with as much fairness and clarity as we can possibly muster, and willingness to correct our mistakes.
A better way for eps to help lacero, if that's all he or she wanted to do, would have been to email and ask us to check why lacero's comment was dead. We would have replied with a thank-you note saying what the reason was and that we had restored all the comments in question. But it doesn't feel to me like helping others is the only agenda going on with comments like eps's, which as you may know are something of a cottage industry on HN.
How you're "going to be treated by the new moderators" is with as much fairness and clarity as we can possibly muster, and willingness to correct our mistakes.
"with as much fairness and clarity as we can possibly muster"
When it comes to exercising authority less is more. If you've ever been "forced" to smile at lame jokes from bouncers when going in to a club you probably know what I mean. Your comments reads like passive aggressive lectures rather than "fair and clear" moderation.
When it comes to exercising authority less is more. If you've ever been "forced" to smile at lame jokes from bouncers when going in to a club you probably know what I mean. Your comments reads like passive aggressive lectures rather than "fair and clear" moderation.
I think I know what happened here. This was the first false statement about HN moderation I was able to reply to, after seeing hundreds of them on the site over the last 18 months. It was frustrating not to be able to say anything for so long, so—even though I tried to control it—that pent-up energy came out in my comment.
Re "lectures": I've been erring on the side of responding to things and giving information. None of that is really on-topic for HN, of course, and I don't intend to do it for long.
Re "lectures": I've been erring on the side of responding to things and giving information. None of that is really on-topic for HN, of course, and I don't intend to do it for long.
> A better way for eps to help lacero, if that's all he or she wanted to do, would have been to email...
This is now understood, but you say it in a severe way - as though you think it should have been obvious for eps to know this. You seem to be making an assumption that, by not doing what you prefer, eps was deliberately acting with negative intent.
From an outside point of view, it is very hard to understand how eps should have known what your preference was (even after rechecking the Guidelines and FAQ). As such, it is hard to understand that eps's intent was anything but positive.
This is now understood, but you say it in a severe way - as though you think it should have been obvious for eps to know this. You seem to be making an assumption that, by not doing what you prefer, eps was deliberately acting with negative intent.
From an outside point of view, it is very hard to understand how eps should have known what your preference was (even after rechecking the Guidelines and FAQ). As such, it is hard to understand that eps's intent was anything but positive.
This is now understood, but you say it in a severe way - as though you think it should have been obvious for eps to know this
Well, it is what the guidelines say, and what we've been saying on the site for years. But you're right: that doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone, and the benefit of the doubt would have helped a lot. That was my mistake.
Well, it is what the guidelines say, and what we've been saying on the site for years. But you're right: that doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone, and the benefit of the doubt would have helped a lot. That was my mistake.
Is it in anyway possible to have automatic emails sent to people who have been hellbanned?
Many HN accounts don't have email addresses.
We would like to implement a better feedback mechanism for HN moderation, but that's a long-term prospect.
We would like to implement a better feedback mechanism for HN moderation, but that's a long-term prospect.
Agreed. eps's comment is as much a product of the opaque nature of moderation here as anything else. Unless users get notified of bans - be they temporary or otherwise - how are they expected to know to modify their behaviour.
Yes I understand there needs to be a balance to avoid an arms race with spammers and the like.
Yes I understand there needs to be a balance to avoid an arms race with spammers and the like.
1. Emailing is not a viable option. I simply don't have email setup on all but one device that I use to browse HN.
2. You can nitpick on technicalities, but it doesn't matter to lacero if he was hell-banned or ip-blacklisted. All that matters is that his comments go in trash can and that's what I was trying to rectify.
PS. A proper way to support these cases is to add "flag for mod review" option to dead comments and/or user accounts. Unlike the email option, it would be actually usable for everyone. Until then I will keep posting "hell-banned" when I see an account with auto-killed, but otherwise reasonable comments. Have a nice weekend.
2. You can nitpick on technicalities, but it doesn't matter to lacero if he was hell-banned or ip-blacklisted. All that matters is that his comments go in trash can and that's what I was trying to rectify.
PS. A proper way to support these cases is to add "flag for mod review" option to dead comments and/or user accounts. Unlike the email option, it would be actually usable for everyone. Until then I will keep posting "hell-banned" when I see an account with auto-killed, but otherwise reasonable comments. Have a nice weekend.
It would be more appropriate to say that a comment is dead, because you can tell that by looking at it, than that an account is banned, because you can't tell that by looking at it, and when you get that wrong, it's misleading. I definitely should have communicated this more clearly above; I'm sorry I didn't.
It's not just nitpicking. We've gotten many emails from distressed users asking why they were banned because they believed this misinformation. Usually it's nothing more than a duplicate comment that got killed, or something nearly as innocuous.
Edit: I thought about this overnight and I do think there's some merit to your proposal. (I don't buy the thing about email not being accessible enough, but that's separate.) It would need some careful design thinking—something I haven't had a minute for all week—so don't expect anything right away.
It's not just nitpicking. We've gotten many emails from distressed users asking why they were banned because they believed this misinformation. Usually it's nothing more than a duplicate comment that got killed, or something nearly as innocuous.
Edit: I thought about this overnight and I do think there's some merit to your proposal. (I don't buy the thing about email not being accessible enough, but that's separate.) It would need some careful design thinking—something I haven't had a minute for all week—so don't expect anything right away.
@dang can you take a look at this as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537035
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537035
Sure. I read it, but didn't understand it precisely. If you'd like to take another crack at it, the best thing would be to make your suggestions as concrete as possible and send them to [email protected].
> I don't buy the thing about email not being accessible enough
There's nothing to buy. I will not email mods about false negatives. It's inconvenient.
There's nothing to buy. I will not email mods about false negatives. It's inconvenient.
Using florid vocabulary doesn't legitimize your heavy-handed slap on the wrist to eps, who was, however misunderstood -- trying to help a fellow user. The pg way was to just state what needed to be said and do what needed to be done, not make examples out of innocent people.
Shame on you, Daniel.
Shame on you, Daniel.
Goat and a sheep? that's disgusting... just totally inhumane for farmers to allow something so horrible to happen... I'm really worried about the future of the human society, what next? a dog and a cat? a human being and a chimpanzee? bunch of perverted maniacs deface what it means to be human, to be pure beings under name of Jesus Christ, we should all repent for our sins to the lord and the savior who created us 6000 years ago.
Love it! I started to get pissed off at the beginning then as I read I started to laugh out loud!
As a farmer Ireland, I was really surprised to see this on here. It was like taking a coffee break from work!
Yeah! HN is too sensible and having just migrated from /. I want some ignorance, indignation and quotes from Our Lord in the comments to warm up my day.
Not even kidding! :D
Not even kidding! :D
[deleted]
http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Porta/jpor...
------------
There is a beast called "Musimones", gendered of a Goat and a Ram. Pliny says, that in Spain, but especially in Corsica, there are beasts called Musimones not much unlike to Sheep, which have Goats hair, but in other parts, Sheep; the young ones which are gendered of them, coupling with Sheep, are called by the Ancients, Umbri. Strabo calls them Musimones. But Albertus calls them Musini or Musimones, which are gendered of a Goat and a Ram. I have heard that in Rhetia, in Helvetian confines, there are generated certain beasts, which are Goats in the hinder parts, but in the former parts, Sheep or Rams; but they cannot live long, but commonly they die, as soon as they are born. And that there the Rams being grown in years, are very strong and lustful, and so often times meet with Goats, do run over them, and that the young ones which wild Rams beget of tame Sheep, are color like the sire, and so is their breed after them; and the wool of the first breed is shaggy, but in their after-breed soft and tender.