The Otter Invasion

A TRIP TO THE LAKE

It was February 2016. Tilden Park in Berkeley, 9 in the morning. The sun and its heat were suggestions behind a thick blanket of light grey fog; I shivered beneath my double-layered jackets as I walked the rain-soaked trail, past sluggish rivers lined with thickets of trees.

I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, trekking the park with my Vertebrate Zoology class. Our enthusiasm for seeking out and jotting notes on local bird and amphibian species aside, the cold weather had left us all a little demoralized.

 

But that changed when a few members of our pack shouted out with excitement: they had seen a lithe, furry shape darting along one of the paths. It was a river otter, Lontra canadensis, in transit between Jewel Lake and another body of water within the park. Many of us scrambled to get a better view of the dashing mammal, but it moved quickly before jumping in the water, dropping from sight.

 

Even the professors leading us found the sighting noteworthy, and with good reason. River otters had once thrived in the lakes and rivers of the Bay Area, as they had in freshwater ecosystems across North America. But centuries of human interference, in the forms of fur-trapping, environmental degradation, and habitat loss, had forced them to fall back. That bleak picture has started to change just within the past decade, with individual otter sightings in parks around the Bay still attracting media attention and piquing the interest of local biologists.

 

Natures was restoring itself. The otters were coming back to northern California, and no doubt with the aid and careful guiding hand of some dedicated scientists. They would join Yosemite park’s grey wolves as another success story of reintroduction.

 

At least, that’s what I thought.

 

 

THE BIG PICTURE

 

The North American river otter has an almost unprecedented range. Historical evidence suggests it lived from coast to coast throughout Canada and much of the US. They’re vivacious creatures, possessing strong swimming skills complemented by surprising competence on land, with a wide-ranging diet that spans fish to crustaceans to small birds.

But these stellar qualities couldn’t save them from the introduction of humans. Their sheer usefulness to humans, particularly its pelt, led to extensive hunting by indigenous groups, a trend that continued with European trappers and their hunting dogs.

 

On top of these otter-specific challenges, the creatures suffered alongside their ecosystems through the hardships of habitat degradation and industrialization. Bay Area-based otters were no exception to this; the Gold Rush flooded local rivers with mercury-tainted sediment in the mid-1800s, and garbage and toxic waste went directly into the Bay until the 1960s.

 

By the second half of the 20th century, Americans began work to rectify the otter displacement. Across the continental US, 21 states and one national park launched programs to reintroduce river otters to their previous habitats. In total, over 4000 otters were deliberately released in former otter territory over 22 years. These projects were mostly successes; by 1998, every state except New Mexico reported otters occupying at least some of their historic habitat.

 

It speaks to a rousing success story. But unexpectedly, the Bay Area bucked this trend. Here, the only official action focused on otters was a 1961 protection order from California Fish and Game, giving them legal protection from hunting and trapping.

 

 

 

“You know, you should be careful calling it a reintroduction.”

 

It was April 2018. I sat in UC Berkeley’s Valley Life Sciences Building, in Alan Shabel’s office. Shabel is a professor in Berkeley’s Integrative Biology department, an evolutionary biologist with an extensive knowledge of mammals, and he was one of my professors for vertebrate zoology two years previously. He’s been teaching that class since 2009, and his yearly field trips into the wilds of the Bay Area have given a picture of the ecosystems changing over time.

 

More than that, otters are one of Shabel’s specialties. In 2017 he studied otters in Lake Victoria, observing the two species that call that lake home, and next year he plans to visit Africa again to officially determine if a subspecies of otter is in fact its own unique species.

 

For a second I’m embarrassed. It’s the umpteenth time in the interview I’ve referred to the river otters’ reappearance in the Bay as a “reintroduction”—and Shabel cautions me on that word choice. That’s because the picture he’s painting for me about the river otter’s resurgence colors outside the lines of the tidy image I’d been led to imagine.

 

“The first instance of a river otter being spotted in the East Bay was an IB 104 student,” Shabel tells me, referring to the vertebrate zoology class. “He was out in the open grass areas in the hills of Briones [Regional Park], and who runs over the hill but a river otter?”

 

This sighting took place in 2012, and it was one of two otter sightings that year. The other one took place across the Bay, in San Francisco’s Sutro Baths. Unlike Briones’s unsung hill-climber, this otter received press coverage, earning the nickname Sutro Sam.

 

Though they only stayed in their respective areas for a few months before departing, these two otters were first spotted in the Bay Area in living memory, and they lit the local biology and conservation community on fire. Citizen scientists began blogs, and eyewitness tips of otter sightings began to roll in. One such blog, the River Otter Ecology Project, would over 2,300 river otter sightings in the Bay between 2012 and 2017, in every Bay Area county except San Mateo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species reintroduction. It’s a phrase in vogue in environmental circles. It speaks to a redemptive arc in human-environmental relations: the restoring of species to their natural habitats. A righting of wrongs.

But some situations are not so clear. The increasing prevalence of the river otter in the Bay Area—once an incremental seasonal increase, now the steady formation of a year-round presence—speaks less to a human-led reintroduction effort and more to a phenomenon humans have yet to fully understand.

 

“It’s less of a reintroduction,” Shabel says, “and more of an invasion.”

——————————————————————————————————-

 

 

California got in on this save-the-otters action, with California Fish and Game outlawed the trapping and hunting of otters in 1961. But the furry creatures largely benefited from general programs to improve the Bay, such as the newly founded Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s efforts to end direct trash dumping into the waters, instead of efforts to specifically preserve otters.

 

Even coincidental changes in human lifestyles stood to benefit the otters. As Shabel wryly notes, “Even dogs are different… Dogs were used for hunting and they were allowed to roam widely… now dogs aren’t as menacing, and otters can even kill dogs sometimes!”

 

The otter resurgence is no small feat. Industrialization and expanded human presence flooded otter homelands with organic pollutants such as pesticides and industrial runoff; these chemicals are eaten by decomposing microbes and eventually travel up the food chain, where they concentrate in the bodies of predators like the river otter.

 

 

 

So what role does the returning otter have to play in its old stomping grounds? Shabel says that, while the data aren’t in on river otters being a keystone species, the resurgence is having some notable effects.
Shabel specifically mentions the otters’ voracious appetite as both a good and bad influence on their environments. The good versus bad often comes down to what the otters choose to eat—good if it’s an invasive turtle species that’s putting pressure on native turtles, bad if it’s a Sacramento perch, an endangered fish endemic to Northern California waters.

 

Where many species would have difficulty resettling an old home, otters seem poised to thrive. Otters that used to inhabit the Bay for a few months each year are now starting to persist year-round. Shabel specifically mentions a female arriving in Tilden in 2017, pregnant with pups; when those pups were born, they persisted in the same place for most of the year. He expects these numbers to only increase from here on out.

 

 

That cold morning in Tilden, seeing the otter invigorated us to keep up with the field trip. And whatever benefits or harmful consequences the return of river otters to the Bay Area has for the local environment, that spur of interest and enthusiasm for our local parks and wilderness cannot be underestimated. Some good may come from this otter invasion yet.

All otter photos taken in local Bay Area parks by Christian Irian.

CSC_0120-220180422_763320170927_698320170804_5976

It’s Back from the Dead, and More Alive Than Ever. Just Don’t Call It a Living Fossil.

It rises from the ocean depths… a long, stocky form with drab-colored scales. It’s huge, almost 6 and a half feet (2 meters). Its fins are a weird shape, curved like long ovals. It gazes at you with glassy eyes.

Exif_JPEG_PICTURE
Photo from Shimonoseki Marine Science Museum

That may be a scary sight, but don’t worry! This big fish is a coelacanth (see-la-kanth), and it’s a lazy eater, gnawing on whatever small fish and squid it happens upon in the ocean currents. But scientists are paying a lot of attention to this strange creature, because it’s been around a long time… and it could be around a lot longer too.

STILL SWIMMING

Scientists have known about coelacanths since the 1800s… but they used to think the fish was old news. The only evidence scientists had of coelacanths was fossils, some as old as 390 million years ago! And most people believed that the coelacanth was gone, made extinct by the same disaster that killed the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

800px-Bamberg_Naturkundemuseum_Quastenflosser_Fossil_17RM1974
Photo by Reinhold Möller.

But that all changed in 1938, when a South African museum curator named Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer noticed the unusual fish in a fisherman’s catch. Before long, ichthyologists (scientists who study fish) were catching more live specimens off the Comoros Islands, which are off of Africa’s east coast.

This discovery amazed the world. A fish that everyone thought was dead for millions of years was still alive, living deep in the waters away from human eyes. Not only that, but it looked like it hadn’t changed at all!

The newspapers of the day gave the coelacanth what they thought was a fitting title: a “living fossil,” a blast from the past, like a wooly mammoth walking through New York City.

It was a catchy name, but it made a lot of assumptions about the coelacanth: not only was it unchanged from an ancient era, it would stay that way. Why, everyone thought, would a fossil change?

HOME BASE

By the early 2000s, scientists had a clear idea that all living coelacanths around Africa called the Comoros Islands home. Sure, people had caught the big fish in a few other nearby locations, but so many coelacanths had been caught around the islands, it made sense to think they only reproduced there.

In fact, scientists thought that any fish that had been caught elsewhere—around countries like Tanzania, Mozambique, and South Africa—were born in Comoros, but had been swept away in the current! (We told you they were lazy swimmers.)

But a group of scientists in Japan and in multiple African countries put this theory to the test in 2005 with a powerful experiment.

  1. They caught dozens of coelacanths around the Comoros Islands and around Tanzania.
  2. They took pieces of the different fish and studied their DNA, looking for similarities and differences.

What were the scientists looking for? If the coelacanths from Comoros had very similar DNA to the ones from Tanzania, it was more likely they were close relatives—more likely the Tanzania fish had been born in Comoros and been carried away.

But if their DNA was different enough, that would mean the Tanzania fish weren’t brothers and sisters of the Comoros fish, but more like distant cousins… which could mean they weren’t visitors to Tanzania, but were living and growing up there.

THE RESULTS WILL SHOCK YOU

So were the Tanzania coelacanths distant relatives of the Comoros coelacanths? Yes and no.

As it turned out, the Tanzania coelacanths could really be split into two different groups. The southern Tanzania fish had DNA that was only slightly different to the Comoros fish; it was still similar enough that they were likely being born in Comoros and leaving for Tanzania.

But the northern Tanzania coelacanths had DNA so different from the Comoros coelacanths, the scientists believed they were reproducing by themselves—meaning the species had established more homes beyond a single set of islands!

MORE CHANGE ON THE WAY

The scientists’ findings directly challenge the idea that the coelacanth is a “living fossil.”

It’s based on an idea called ‘reproductive isolation.’ If a single species splits apart into two or more separate populations, and reproduces so that members of those populations never interbreed, then it becomes much easier for each population to evolve in different directions. This potentially creates new species, and scientists believe the different coelacanth populations are heading that way now!

So when you see a coelacanth slowly swimming along through the deep Pacific ocean, know that there’s more going on beneath its surface than meets the eye.

 


 

Target audience: young (late childhood to teenage), with an interest in science and animals. An ability to follow along with an explained, simplified evolutionary concept.

Target publication: National Geographic Kids. Example here.

 

Interview: Noelle Paffett- Lugassy

For the blog this week, I interviewed Noelle Paffett- Lugassy. A fellow student in my Science Writing class, she opens up about her history with scientific research and teaching, the subjects she’s come to love, and the new frontiers she hopes to explore as she returns to the work force!

Interview is edited for clarity.

Hi, Noelle! So, for starters, what spurred your interest in science writing? How exactly did you hear about our class?

I’m interested in science, and I’ve always enjoyed explaining science to other people. Actually, my husband found this class (laughs), because we’d been talking a lot about my [desire to] transition from being a scientist to something else. Since I had a little bit of experience in freelance science writing for a nonprofit thyroid oncology blog, we thought that getting some more exposure and formal instruction in science writing would be good.

In your blog you write a lot about microbiology and viruses. What spurs you to focus on those subjects?

So, I actually hated microbio in school! I took it because I needed to take it, it was required as a biology major in Wellesley College… I was re-exposed to the subject as a teacher, when I became an adjunct assistant professor at Barnard College and a high-school biology tutor. I had to confront and teach [cell biology and microbiology] that I hated (laughs), but I didn’t have an option!… And I found that microbiology was very interesting… we’re full of bacteria and viruses and we have viral DNA in our genome… and our lives depend on these tiny tiny little things that are in our bodies and influence us in ways scientists are finally starting to understand.

You were kind of forced into the topic, but then you realized how interesting it could be?

Exactly!… One of the first things that really [interested me was] learning how many microbes we know about, but can’t cultivate in a lab setting. The sheer diversity of the micro-environment was so much more than [I] previously knew about… just remarkable little creatures that are really really quickly evolving!

You’ve actually had a long career trajectory, from research to teaching and even some writing before taking this class! You’ve ended up seeing and teaching your field of science from a lot of different angles.

I actually found teaching high-school students was much harder than teaching college students! (laughs)

Oh, wow!

Yeah, it’s so different… Like I can explain to [fellow scientists] topics like transcription pretty easily because I can use words like ‘protein’ and ‘DNA’ and you understand what I’m talking about, but a high-school student can’t use those words…

[After teaching}, I did miss doing science, so I eventually went back to the lab, working as a postdoc at Metts General Hospital in Massachusetts studying heart development… but six years on, family stuff caused us to move to San Francisco, and I decided not to go back to the lab. And now I’m considering science writing or teaching moving forward!

You mentioned writing for a nonprofit. What kind of writing do you do there?

So I do freelance writing for the International Thyroid Oncology Group… I usually interview scientists for their website and newsletters. It’s a very specific audience; I write for physicians, clinicians, and patients… people who are fairly sophisticated in their science knowledge. [My readership there is] sort of a hybrid between a lay audience and a technical audience. I got that job through a recommendation from a friend who already worked there, and it’s been fun learning so much about an area of science I knew nothing about! It’s also helped me stay engaged with science as I’m currently not really working.

Yes, about that… In the class you’ve talked about taking time off from working to raise your kids. I’m sure you’re asked a lot about the challenges of being a mother returning to work in a science field, so I wanted to know, what are some support structures or groups you might be using?

Um… I don’t know (laughs). If there are support groups I don’t know them.  I mostly rely on family and other moms that I know, and I’m still in contact with people that I knew from [prior positions], and they fill me in on what they’re involved with, and I help them edit sometimes… But that’s not really career-building stuff, you know? It’s really to keep me aware of cool new science, and so I don’t get completely lost in Mom world (laughs).

What are you planning to write about for the final project?

I am planning to write about bacteriophages. I have one big hang-up, which is what should my audience be… Like, one of my career goals is, how do I make my blog stand out among so many good ones, and I think a [strategy] that’s a natural extension of the way I think now is to write it for kids who are interested in science. This is partially because my 5-year-old son asks me REALLY good questions about science, and I spend a large part of my day explaining things to him. Yesterday on the way to school he asked, “Can a boy just make a baby by himself?” And when I explained you need [a male and female] he surprised me and he asked, “Well then how did the person get made?” And now we’re having a whole conversation about evolution!

[As a potential career move] I’m planning to write for science publications that are aimed at kids such as Muse magazine. [A big challenge there is] stepping outside my comfort zone of writing technically, and writing for that level of audience.

Will you try out writing for that audience on the final project, then?

Hmm… I actually also want to figure out if I want to write to the parents of curious kids (laughs). Make it easier for them to answer their [kids’] big questions. It’s not a big market, but…

You’d definitely stand out.

Yes! (laughs)

 

 

 

 

Otters and Pollutants

Get ready for a roller coaster of emotions:

North American river otters.

They’re adorable!

 

Unfortunately, they are now living proof that when human development encroaches on natural habitat, wildlife can suffer.

 

(Told you it would be a roller coaster.)

 

 

A 2018 study published in Environmental Pollution examines a link between long-lasting organic pollutants in environments, and the health of creatures that inhabit those environments.

 

The environments studied were harbors in British Columbia, Canada. These include locations so polluted the federal government has designated them contaminated sites. Many of these pollutants are persistent organic pollutants (POPs), long-lasting toxic chemicals from manmade sources such as insecticides.

The creatures: The adorable river otters. While their range historically reaches across North America, habitat destruction over the last century has limited it significantly. The Canadian scientists hypothesized this lack of habitat options would force otters into contaminated sites, where the pollutants would noticeably impact their health.

 

The team of scientists sampled otters from three neighboring coastal environments: the Victoria and Esquimalt harbors (collectively the ‘contaminated’ habitat), and two clean locations, Colwood and Oak Bay. These three locales have differing human presences: Victoria/Esquimalt is an industrial site, Oak Bay is inhabited but relatively intact, and Colwood is relatively untouched.

 

The scientists sought multiple lines of evidence about the otters. They took DNA samples to know how the otters were moving between the three locations, to see if the otters were aware of and thus actively avoided Victoria/Esquimalt’s contamination. They also tested otter scat to determine how much POP they were ingesting. Finally, the DNA samples would indicate if more otters were moving into Victoria/Esquimalt than were leaving it—an indicator that more otters were dying there than were born there, which would suggest those otters were being negatively impacted by the pollutants.

 

The results: The otters that lived in Victoria/Esquimalt did indeed have POP in their scat. However, the DNA results indicated there was no significant difference in immigration and emigrations of otters into and from Victoria; this suggests that not only did otters not really notice the high level of pollutants, it didn’t seem to impact their health!

 

So does this mean pollutants don’t affect cute predators? Not necessarily; otters may just be hardier against pollutants than more sensitive predators, such as minks. But it should warm any otter aficionado’s heart that river otters may be revealing information about pollution’s role in the environment, without themselves getting too hurt.

Spiders: Team Funnel-Web, Team Mouse, and the Venom that Binds Them

If you’re an American and are scared of spiders, consider yourself lucky you don’t live in Australia. From the hulking huntsman to the sneaky redback, the island continent hosts plenty of spider species to spook you. But two Australian spider types—the Sydney funnel-web spider (Atrax robustus) and the mouse spiders (species in genus Missulena)—stand out for a sobering reason: the sheer strength of their venoms.

Scientists publishing in Nature have recently reported that these species, historically considered distant relatives, could be much closer than previously thought. This sheds light on the origins of these spiders’ venom, and has ramifications for creating and distributing spider antivenoms.

Atrax_robustus
The Sydney funnel-web. Credits to Wikipedia user ‘Tirin.’
800px-Mouse_spider
A mouse spider. Credits to Wikipedia user ‘Fir0002.’

 

WHAT’S IN A VENOM?

 

The Sydney funnel-web’s venom is a complex brew, containing multiple insect-specific neurotoxins. However, its most important component where humans are concerned is a delta-hexatoxin, a poison that interferes with sodium channels in primate cells. The consequences are deadly, with 13 recorded deaths from funnel-web bites.

The funnel-web shares this toxin with a few other spiders. Most of these species are close relatives of the funnel-web, clustered in a group called the Atracinae. It’s not a huge leap, then, to conclude the hexatoxin developed in a common ancestor of this group.

But another species cluster produces a toxin with very similar chemistry to the funnel-web’s: the mouse spiders of genus Missulena and their close relatives. And this baffled scientists, because they traditionally considered Missulena and the Atracinae very distant relatives! How do these two groups, then, have such similar venoms?

 

TEAM FUNNEL-WEB (the Atracinae) AND TEAM MOUSE (Missulena and Relatives)

In their efforts to explain this phenomenon, scientists presented two theories:

  • The toxin was developed in an extremely ancient ancestor, and Team Funnel-Web and Team Mouse are the only modern spiders to possess it intact. This means every other descendant of that ancestor lost the toxin, an improbable evolutionary event.
  • Team Funnel-Web and Team Mouse each developed the toxin independently, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. This is similarly improbable.

Scientists were stuck. Given the evidence, these were the best explanations they could present. But this changed with the Nature report, which challenged the theories’ very premise.

 

CLOSER TOGETHER

The team analyzed the genomes of Team Funnel-Web and Team Mouse, comparing nearly 10,000 genetic markers between them. Their results were unprecedented: Team Funnel-Web and Team Mouse were not distant relatives at all, but sister taxa! The results are striking enough that the Atracinae (remember, Team Funnel-Web) are on track to leave their taxonomic family and become their own, right next to Team Mouse’s family on the spider family tree.

 

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE VENOM?

With this revelation about Team Funnel-Web and Team Mouse’s close ties, we now have a solid reason for their venoms’ similarity: a common ancestor. Except where scientists once had to contend with explaining why the Teams’ sibling groups had no toxins, we now have a simpler story—no other siblings.

Now that we know the spiders’ venoms are derived from the same source, this opens up new possibilities for deploying antivenoms. In particular, antivenoms that were manufactured to treat mouse spider bites could treat funnel-web bites, and vice versa. Developments like this should make us all a little safer from two of Australia’s most terrifying spiders.

Coelacanths: Staying alive, staying diverse

Since its discovery as a living species in 1939, the coelacanth has borne a reputation as a “living fossil,” untouched by evolutionary forces since prehistoric times. It’s an easy assumption to make: if a living, breathing fish looks identical to ancient fossils, surely no changes occurred in the intervening millennia.

The resemblance is uncanny.

But no self-respecting organism just sits around and twiddles its fins for millions of years. In a 2011 article published in PNAS, a group of Japanese and African scientists reported significant genetic differences between coelacanth populations across the Indian Ocean, indicating that evolution is taking place within this “primitive” species.

Now, some coelacanth diversity is already well established: there are two distinct species, the West Indian Ocean coelacanth and the Indonesian coelacanth. But the PNAS article focuses on ongoing evolution within the West Indian Ocean coelacanth species (colloquially called just ‘coelacanth’), focusing on the establishment of distinct populations with no interbreeding—the perfect hotbed for new species to form.

 In their project, the researchers looked at two coelacanth communities: one group in the Comoros islands just north of Madagascar, where humans have found the majority of living coelacanths, and a more recently unearthed population off Tanzania’s coast. Comparing their DNA, the scientists discovered that northern Tanzanian individuals had significantly different genetic markers from Comoran and southern Tanzanian coelacanths. From this, the team concluded that northern Tanzanian coelacanths were a distinct breeding group, and had diverged from their compatriots between 200,000 and a few million years ago.

This finding challenged the established view that coelacanths found along Africa’s coastline were all merely stray members of the Comoros population. This theory, published as recently as a 2005 Nature article, may still hold true for coelacanths along southern Tanzania’s coast; their DNA is similar enough to their Comoran brethren to indicate recent ancestry. But the northern Tanzanian population clearly bucks this trend, and with more genetic research of coelacanths in the offing, researchers could designate populations around Madagascar, Mozambique, and South Africa distinct too.

Modern coelacanths may look just like those prehistoric fossils. But as this research shows, a lot is going on beneath the surface. Given time, genetically distinct populations could become their own species, and who knows? This fossil fish’s most prolific years may be yet to come.

Original story here.

“You… ARE the sister!”– …A Tale of Two Gharials [EDIT]

It’s a family drama worthy of a daytime talk-show: a case of mistaken identity, resulting in a narrow-nosed reptile landing on the wrong branch of its family tree. And in true Jerry Springer and Maury Povich fashion, it’s coming to light because of DNA evidence.

The players in this family feud are two large reptile species, the true gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) and the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii). They resemble crocodiles, but stand out among all crocodilians–the collective term for crocodiles, alligators, and gharials–with their long, narrow jaws.

Historically, most taxonomists considered the false gharial a member of Crocodylidae, the family of true crocodiles, while relegating the true gharial to own family, the Gavialidae–a clear outgroup of the Crocodilia order. For years scientists believed that the narrow snouts of true and false gharials were  products of convergent evolution–not a trait the two species derived from a shared ancestor, but coincidentally similar features each species developed independently. They further pointed to multiple physical features that the false gharial had in common with crocodile species and which the true gharial lacked.

The rise of molecular phylogenetics through DNA sequencing challenged this story. Multiple studies sequencing crocodilian genomes upended the morphological version of events, suggesting that true and false gharials are in fact sister taxa within Gavialidae. Key evidence includes a specific 7-nucleotide sequence shared by the two gharial species, but completely absent from other crocodile genera.

A 1997 study asserts that in this new model, many of the morphological characters the false gharial and the other true crocodiles hold in common are products of convergent evolution. Taxonomists continue to debate the proper balance between the morphological and molecular results. But one can hope the true and false gharials, once distant cousins, can reckon with each other as possible sisters with no mediating TV show hosts and no thrown chairs.

 

“You… ARE the sister!”– …A Tale of Two Gharials

13931067564_d056421928_b
The gharial, a majestic predator. photo credit to Adam Jones

 

false-gharial-347262_960_720
The false gharial, who totally doesn’t have self-esteem issues from being called ‘false.’        photo credit to Pixabay

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s a family drama worthy of a daytime talk-show: a case of mistaken identity, resulting in a narrow-nosed river reptile getting perched on the wrong branch of its family tree. And in true Jerry Springer and Maury Povich fashion, it’s all coming to light because of DNA evidence.

The players in this family feud are two species of large reptile, the true gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) and the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii). Both are river-living predators native to Asia (the gharial in the Indian subcontinent, the false gharial in the islands of Indonesia), and are both distinct among all crocodilians–the collective term for crocodiles, alligators, and gharials–for their long, narrow jaws. (Or snouts. The exactly terminology depends on each individual croc’s sense of threatened masculinity.).

But how distinct, exactly? In schnoz appearance, sure, both species clearly stand out from their fellow crocodilians. But for most of the history of modern taxonomy, the false gharial was actually considered a member of Crocodylidae, the family of true crocodiles. The true gharial, meanwhile, was relegated to its own family, the Gavialidae–a clear outgroup of the Crocodilia order.

(Just imagine; getting turned down by the bouncers of the True Crocs Club while your alleged brother gets in. And it’s a club of crocodiles; those bouncers are absolutely massive.)

Why this bizarre classification? For years scientists believed that the shared narrow snouts of true and false gharials was a product of convergent evolution–not a trait the two species derived from a shared ancestor, but coincidentally similar features each species developed independently. They instead pointed to multiple physical features that the false gharial had in common with crocodile species, seeming to tie it closer to those species than the true gharial.

And that’s how the story stood… until the rise of molecular analysis through DNA sequencing. Multiple contemporary studies (from 2007 and 2003 respectively) that sequenced crocodilian genomes upended the morphological version of events, suggesting that the true and false gharials are in fact sister taxa within Gavialidae!

True gharial: But don’t you get it? You don’t belong with the Cool Crocs either! You’re a loser like me!

False gharial: Um… yay?

Key evidence includes a specific 7-nucleotide sequence shared by the two gharial species, but completely absent from other crocodile genera.

14170916565_69c4e6cfca_z
A phylogenetic tree from 2012. Notice the true gharial and false gharial (u and v, specifically) are grouped together just outside the crocodile family. photo credit to “Insights into the Ecology and Evolutionary Success of Crocodilians Revealed through Bite-Force and Tooth-Pressure Experimentation” published on PLOS One

So what leads to such a disparity in the morphological and genetic results? A 1997 study asserts many of the morphological characters the false gharial and the other true crocodiles hold in common are products of convergent evolution. For herpetologists and taxonomists, the exact balance between morphological and molecular results remains to be struck.

But one can only hope that the true gharial and false gharial, once distant cousins, but learn to reckon with each other as possible sisters… and that they do so with no mediating TV show hosts, and no thrown chairs.

 

*taps mic* Is this thing on?

Hello there!

17634777_1179500585510811_3654744702020466251_n
photo credit to Alex Sun Liu

 

That’s me, Sameer! I am an LA transplant and recent UC Berkeley graduate.

I studied Integrative Biology with an emphasis in evolution and ecology, and followed this through with research internships in multiple labs. I had a particular affinity for studying insects; I worked in the Kremen Lab to study methods of preserving pollinator populations around farmlands, as well as the Fine Lab and Will Lab to do DNA barcoding of multiple insect species.

I had some curious jobs in the lab… Weird to do, and weirder still to explain to my friends. :0

1016641_561505310555490_1223214170_n
photo credit to Sameer Nayak

Try telling your friends what it means to “sex syrphid flies.”

In the past year, however, I’ve had a bit of a career change, focusing on nonprofit work. Last summer I worked at Environment California, joining a political campaign to prevent the slashing of the EPA’s budget. Canvassing door-to-door in neighborhoods across the Bay was a world removed from the seclusion and cramped conditions of a research lab, but it taught me a passion for engaging people on scientific issues.

(And not just people.)

unnamed
photo credit to Bonnie Christensen

 

It is this spirit of communicating scientific ideas in a fun and engaging way that I hope to bring to this blog, and I cannot wait to start sharing stories with you! 🙂