Jump to content

Talk:Grizzly–polar bear hybrid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IThink4u (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 12 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Location

While the MSNBC story footnoted in the article has a dateline of Iqaluit, Nunavut, the bear was not located there. It was rather on Banks Island, in the Northwest Territories of Canada, a completely different territory, and quite far away from Iqaluit. I'll be changing the article to reflect this. --Canuckguy 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever make the article more accurate! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Couldn't we find a picture of it? This article is nearly pointless without one. I'll look around myself, but... -Torgo 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Lisapollison 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is a photo on the web, unfortunately wikipedia's copyright policy will make it very dificult to put up. just google image grizzly polar hybrid. Joeyramoney 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external link and the MSNBC reference each have a photo. dq 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a picture (probably all the same one). It apparently was released by the Canadian Wildlife Services, which might make it fair use or public domain, but I don't know, and am having a hard time finding out. Does anyone know about that? -Torgo 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was released by the Canadian Wildlife Services for distribution in the news media (AP). It will qualify under fair use. --JOK3R 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added it myself. --JOK3R 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Colbert Report had a mock picture fusing a grizzly and polar bear photo and then merged the resulting hybrid with Robocop. I doubt we could use it but I figured I'd toss it out for those interested. --Bobak 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

A never ever seen before rare animal, perhaps extinct?
What should we do?
Oh yeah, lets shoot it!
I wonder what it tastes like!

Hmm...

This isn't Lost related, is it? :) Applejuicefool 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-My god, thats freaky! 0_0 6:27, 11 May 2006


I thought this was sick. Why the hell did they shoot it?

Come to think about it, why did they shoot it? Isn't it illegal or something? IThink4u 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

I thought that pages that are linked to from the main page are supposed to be locked to prevent vandalization. But "summarily destroyed by dumb hunters" sounds pretty POV to me. "unfortunately killed before it could be studied" seems more neutral to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk • contribs)

Actually only images on the front page are protected, basically to prevent the unwanted appearance of genitalia. The articles themselves are explicitly not protected from editing, because that would violate the spirit of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit. See User:Raul654/protection and Wikipedia:Protection policy. In the case of repeated vandalism, Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy may apply. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all those coming to complain about it being killed...

... go back and reread the article carefully. The fact that the bear was a hybrid was only discovered after it had been killed; furthermore, had it not been killed, nobody would ever have found out about it. The sequence of events is important; bitching about Americans or hunters will only be a display of your own ignorance. --MrHumperdink 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a boon for science and humanity in general. We are so much richer now, we have witnessed a brand new species because someone shot the only known member. --Jquarry 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say we give every man, woman and child on the planet an AK-47 and tell everyone to go shoot every animal they see. Maybe we'll find some new species in the aftermath!! Orabomb 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that point, but why on earth was it killed in the first place? Polar bears are seriously endangered animals, this guy seems to have gotten lucky, otherwise wouldn't he have broken the law?(Or am I being very ignorant?) Jamandell (d69) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. He had a polar bear hunting license which are issued in Canada. See here. Originally he was in danger of facing a fine because they thought it was a grizzly bear, which he didn't have a license for. See here.
Polar bears aren't "seriously endangered", or even endangered. They are "vulnerable". --70.30.77.176 01:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Are hybrids sterile? If so then is this a new species? I think not. Mfields1 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never know. --Jquarry 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if they're going to study it, we will. Not to mention this is the first time one has been found 'in the wild', there are bear hybrids in zoos already. Also, I believe this was a legal hunt, due to the fact there was a guide, and the man shot what he thought was a regular polar bear. They did not know it was a hybrid until after the fact, and we would have never seen it at all if he hadn't shot it. This truly is a good thing for science. - Adolphus79 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's next, studying the sei whale with depth charges? (Wait, the Japanese already do.) --Jquarry 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new species, it's a hybrid. The news articles mention that polar bears and grizzlies have bred in zoos, and their offspring are fertile. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure if it would have been a normal polar or a normal grizzly bear it would have been allright :-/ Doesn't your country have a law against hunting endangered species? --84.30.97.206 23:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the food chain, if a man does not have a weapon then the bear eats the man. It depends on which side of the teeth you are on as to whether you are endangered.  :-) Mfields1 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was a tourist... he went looking for bears to kill them. It's not like the bear came into his home and started insulting his mother. Now, I'll just make clear that I'm not here to judge the hunter or the Canadian policy, but I can't let that kind of justification slide. 82.21.57.134 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
human beings didn't evolve to use guns, and they didn't evolve to kill animals that they don't intend to eat or that weren't directly threatening them. Infact human beings didn't evolve to live in North America at all, so it's no surprise that bears are so easily murdered; having only been in contact with our species for about 10,000 years... ironically the shooting of the poor creature is far more unnatural than the union that produced it. --Krsont 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most all new species through history have been found by being killed & studied... Wikipedia is not the place to complain about political practice. - Adolphus79 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong of the guy to kill it. It didn't even do anything to him. IThink4u 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Species concepts

The author assumes that a viable and sexually reproducing hybrid indicates that both parent species are one species. Actually, this is applicable only under one of many species concepts. These concepts vary in their tenets of what constitutes a species. Under most of these concepts, polar and brown bears will still retain their own taxa; as is intuitive to anybody who knows anything about the differences (range, behavior, appearance, etc.) about these creatures. Turkeylips 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid&oldid=52769283"