First-ever natural narwhal-beluga hybrid found, has bizarre teeth

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 22, 2019

Intelligent Design, speciation}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A team of researchers has compiled the first and only evidence that narwhals and beluga whales can breed successfully. DNA and stable isotope analysis of an anomalous skull from the Natural History Museum of Denmark has allowed researchers to confirm the existence of a narwhal-beluga hybrid.

The hybrid’s skull was found on the roof of a hunter’s toolshed in Greenland.

“As far as we know, this is the first and only evidence in the world that these two Arctic whale species can interbreed. Based on the intermediate shape of the skull and teeth, it was suggested that the specimen might be a narwhal-beluga hybrid, but this could not be confirmed. Now we provide the data that confirm that yes — it is indeed a hybrid,” says Eline Lorenzen, evolutionary biologist and curator at the University of Copenhagen’s Natural History Museum of Denmark. Lorenzen led the study, which was published today in Scientific Reports.
Using DNA and stable isotope analysis, the scientists determined that the skull belonged to a male, first-generation hybrid between a female narwhal and male beluga.
The hybrid’s skull was considerably larger than that of a typical narwhal or beluga. But the teeth were markedly different. Whereas narwhals have only one or rarely two long spiraling tusks, belugas have a set of uniform conical teeth that are aligned in straight rows. The hybrid skull has a set of long, spiraling and pointed teeth, that are angled horizontally.
“This whale has a bizarre set of teeth. The isotope analysis allowed us to determine that the animal’s diet was entirely different than that of a narwhal or beluga — and it is possible that its teeth influenced its foraging strategy. Whereas the other two species fed in the water column, the hybrid was a bottom dweller,” according to Mikkel Skovrind, a PhD student at the Natural History Museum and first author of the paper.
Paper. (open access) – Mikkel Skovrind, Jose Alfredo Samaniego Castruita, James Haile, Eve C. Treadaway, Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Michael V. Westbury, Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen, Paul Szpak, Eline D. Lorenzen. Hybridization between two high Arctic cetaceans confirmed by genomic analysis. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44038-0 More.

For all we know, this could be common. If it’s a bottom dweller, who was looking? Maybe hybridization plays a bigger role in evolution than we supposed. And then schoolbook Darwinism plays a smaller one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcQ9KfoizXw

See also: Bird, Tested And Released, Turned Out To Be A Hybrid Of Three Species

Is The Recently Cited Hybrid Dolphin-Whale A “New Species”? No.

and

A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Knowing that a species is clonal is not really enough information to guess at the amount genetic diversity. It's quite possible for a population to be clonal (because one clone has swept to fixation) or for there to be a lot of among-clonal-lineage diversity (large population size, geographical structure or differeing patterns of selection over time or in space will all have the same effect).Mimus_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Aaron S: I just saw the answer you gave @ 13. No, that wasn't what I had in mind. It is an actual fish species I had in mind. You say:
So the genetic diversity is slight at best.
in reference to the 'immortal jellyfish.' Let's wait for Br Brian to answer. Then I'll cite a paper.PaV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian: Please see @ 14.PaV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Lol this was not what I was expecting to read, I choked a little, thank u good sir :)AaronS1978_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

This poor whale - a half-breed - is socially rejected by its kin on both sides and forced to become a bottom feeder. Where are the SJW's and their intersectional concerns?Fasteddious_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

BrBrian: Such a population has been found. So, what' your answer?PaV_{June 23, 2019
June
06
Jun
23
23
2019
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

@bb Now I most certainly don’t claim to be an expert on this but when you look at the fossil record there are abrupt changes and another species replaces it that is very similar but yet different, I always thought this might be better explained by fertile hybrids. Now about humans has you brought up above ( it reminded me of the South Park episode LOL) I often think about the possibility between Neanderthal and humans. The very fair skin of people from Europe versus those of African American dissent contrast greatly and I never could get my head around the fact that just because you lived in a colder climate with less sun you would suddenly lose that pigment because of some mutation, lack of use, or fairer skinned had some survival advantage. There are many theories for this but to be terribly honest with you I always lean towards the fact that Neanderthal was the source of the fair skin Hybridization between the two species One of the reasons why i object to many of the fair skin theories is because of the fact that we have had millions of African-American descent that live in those climates and show no sign for that type of change. However the trait can be easily explained by the intermingling of those two species Again I’m not an expert at this I’m just expressing my opinion on why I disagree with it We can never really know how it works no matter what we’re just not capable of building a time machine to find out But the intermingling between two species producing a new species seems like a pretty safe bet @PaV Now to answer your question, the immortal jellyfish is colonies of clones of itself it’s been around for millions of years with no real change i believe If that answers your question about genetic diversity. Millions of bacteria do the same every time they divide cellularly even the clones are slightly different given the spacing of mitochondria between the two divides 1/2 might get three mitochondria while the other half gets one in the mitochondrion themselves are different and sometimes have different genetic code So the genetic diversity is slight at best. But if I’m getting what you’re hinting at there is no change and you are correct.AaronS1978_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

PaV
Let me ask you this: in a population of animals that reproduce as clones, how much genetic diversity would you expect there to be?
When you find a population of animals that solely reproduces as clones, I will answer your question.Brother Brian_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Maybe, in the distant future, the entire human race will be a blended, bland, dark beige sameness, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Maybe, in the distant past, the entire human race was a blended, bland, dark beige sameness. Isn't that what the evolutionary story would tell us? And depending on what skin tone Adam and Eve had, that could also be true of the Creation Story.ET_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian: Your mutterings @7 are no more than Darwinian orthodoxy. You're a true believer. But to someone who is not a true believer, it sounds like someone telling you that if you eat spinach, you'll be as strong as Popeye. Let me ask you this: in a population of animals that reproduce as clones, how much genetic diversity would you expect there to be?PaV_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978
And think of it once you have one hybridize a species they spread and other species and they hybridize
But does it really work this way? Correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting that hybridization results in a blending of two species (or populations). But does this really happen? On the borders of two populations, you may see this, as we see it with wolves, coywolves, coyotes, etc. But for the bulk of either population all we see is the introduction of a few traits due to some hybridized traits becoming fixed in the population. Humans are an ideal example. We see more “hybridization” (ie, interbreeding) between the three major races than we have probably seen in recorded history. Yet there are still distinct Caucasian, Asian and African populations. Maybe, in the distant future, the entire human race will be a blended, bland, dark beige sameness, but I wouldn’t bet on it.Brother Brian_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Natural selection relies on a source of heritable variation in the reproducing population.
Natural selection relies on the untestable assumption that all genetic changes are happenstance occurrences. If that assumption is wrong, and the evidence says that it is, then the concept is in need of change. And it is just a process of elimination. The less fit get eliminated over time. It isn't a mechanism that can account for whales, that's for sure.
The point is that hybridization is a well understood mechanism.
And unaccounted for via blind and mindless processes. Hybridization is just sexual reproduction between two phenotypically different organisms, for example different species. Which, as I said, is unaccounted for via blin and mindless processes. Brother Brian's ad hominems, projections, lies, bluffs and equivocations, while amusing, are neither an argument nor evidence. And it is strange that no one can reference a scientific theory of evolution They can link to people talking about it but never to the actual theory. It is very telling that all Brother Brian can do is spew ad hominems rather than ante up something beyond the normal equivocations and lies.ET_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Natural selection relies on a source of heritable variation in the reproducing population. Darwin didn’t know what the source of this variation was. Mutations are the ultimate source, but we now know that various genetic shuffling are also a source. As are HGT and hybridization. Hybridization, even if rare, can introduce traits into a population that did not previously exist. Maybe they are a dead-end in most cases. But they don’t always have to be. The point is that hybridization is a well understood mechanism. ET’s ad hominems and parroted nonsense claims about no theory of evolution do not change this.Brother Brian_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

AaronS: This type of hybridization has long been considered here at UD. It's called, "front-loading." But, as with all such cases, the question always becomes, "Where did this information come from?" Insects can't mate with mammals. So where did 'insect' information come from? Where did 'mammal' information come from? You can consider evolution via hybridization as a kind of random sampling of a genome. However, where did the genome come from? Where did all those 'body-types' come from in the Cambrian? This is the dilemna for evolution. It cannot propose a mechanism whereby either the initial, or totally new, information arises. It is a fatal flaw in Darwinian theory--and in neo-Darwinian theory, and in the Neutral Theory, etc.PaV_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
This has to rank up there with one of the daftest statements said here
Not when compared to your posts. Just read the article:
Whereas the other two species fed in the water column, the hybrid was a bottom dweller,” according to Mikkel Skovrind, a PhD student at the Natural History Museum and first author of the paper.
Brother Brian proves that it cannot read and only wants to attack.
It is a universally accepted part of evolutionary theory.
Of course it is. Except there isn't any scientific evolutionary theory.ET_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

I always thought that hybridization explains the fossil record a little bit better than the gradual change of species And think of it once you have one hybridize a species they spread and other species and they hybridize And then we have all of these different species that all look like they relate That’s just my take on it in my humble opinion but I really do believe that hybridization has a bigger role to play then people to give it credit forAaronS1978_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

From "Epic of Evolution" website:
Some biologists dismiss the importance of rare events. Others, like Nolan Kane and his colleagues present convincing evidence that rare events, when useful to the organism, spread quickly throughout vast geographical regions. A single rare hybridization event quickly takes over an entire region. Some of these hybridization events allow organisms to inhabit new new places.
Rare events! How does that square with Darwin's insistence on gradualism?PaV_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

For all we know, this type of hybridization could be common. If it’s a bottom dweller, who was looking?
This has to rank up there with one of the daftest statements said here (other than anything from ET). Whales aren’t exactly unseen. They breathe air so they are on the surface every few minutes. Both belugas and narwhals are seen quite frequently. And the Arctic is literally littered with whale skeletons. If it were common, it would have been seen before. Hazel
I have a limited background in this topic, but I thought hybridization was a fairly accepted part of evolutionary theory, and especially common in plants.
My only correction to your statement is that hybridization is not “fairly” well accepted. It is a universally accepted part of evolutionary theory.Brother Brian_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

I have a limited background in this topic, but I thought hybridization was a fairly accepted part of evolutionary theory, and especially common in plants.hazel_{June 22, 2019
June
06
Jun
22
22
2019
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply