Here is an excerpt from The Origin Of Species:

“We shall appreciate this difficulty more clearly by looking to certain existing faunas and floras. From the extraordinary manner in which European productions have recently spread over New Zealand, and have seized on places which must have been previously occupied by the indigenes, we must believe, that if all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there, and would exterminate many of the natives. On the other hand, from the fact that hardly a single inhabitant of the southern hemisphere has become wild in any part of Europe, we may well doubt whether, if all the productions of New Zealand were set free in Great Britain, any considerable number would be enabled to seize on places now occupied by our native plants and animals. Under this point of view, the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand. Yet the most skilful naturalist, from an examination of the species of the two countries, could not have foreseen this result.”

Is Darwin right?

If so, why is this?

dv said:

Here is an excerpt from The Origin Of Species:

“We shall appreciate this difficulty more clearly by looking to certain existing faunas and floras. From the extraordinary manner in which European productions have recently spread over New Zealand, and have seized on places which must have been previously occupied by the indigenes, we must believe, that if all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there, and would exterminate many of the natives. On the other hand, from the fact that hardly a single inhabitant of the southern hemisphere has become wild in any part of Europe, we may well doubt whether, if all the productions of New Zealand were set free in Great Britain, any considerable number would be enabled to seize on places now occupied by our native plants and animals. Under this point of view, the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand. Yet the most skilful naturalist, from an examination of the species of the two countries, could not have foreseen this result.”

Is Darwin right?

If so, why is this?

OK. In my humble non scientician type opinion it would go something like this. That despite the fact that NZ had unique stuff everything from jolly old Blighty ran wild there and that this proved that they animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt than those of NZ.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Here is an excerpt from The Origin Of Species:

“We shall appreciate this difficulty more clearly by looking to certain existing faunas and floras. From the extraordinary manner in which European productions have recently spread over New Zealand, and have seized on places which must have been previously occupied by the indigenes, we must believe, that if all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there, and would exterminate many of the natives. On the other hand, from the fact that hardly a single inhabitant of the southern hemisphere has become wild in any part of Europe, we may well doubt whether, if all the productions of New Zealand were set free in Great Britain, any considerable number would be enabled to seize on places now occupied by our native plants and animals. Under this point of view, the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand. Yet the most skilful naturalist, from an examination of the species of the two countries, could not have foreseen this result.”

Is Darwin right?

If so, why is this?

OK. In my humble non scientician type opinion it would go something like this. That despite the fact that NZ had unique stuff everything from jolly old Blighty ran wild there and that this proved that they animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt than those of NZ.

You see there were old English trees well established on NZ when the British arrived. Which can only point to the fact that the British had actually landed there previously.

dv said:

Here is an excerpt from The Origin Of Species:

“We shall appreciate this difficulty more clearly by looking to certain existing faunas and floras. From the extraordinary manner in which European productions have recently spread over New Zealand, and have seized on places which must have been previously occupied by the indigenes, we must believe, that if all the animals and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there, and would exterminate many of the natives. On the other hand, from the fact that hardly a single inhabitant of the southern hemisphere has become wild in any part of Europe, we may well doubt whether, if all the productions of New Zealand were set free in Great Britain, any considerable number would be enabled to seize on places now occupied by our native plants and animals. Under this point of view, the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand. Yet the most skilful naturalist, from an examination of the species of the two countries, could not have foreseen this result.”

Is Darwin right?

If so, why is this?

I suspect a couple of factors at play –

1. Australia/NZ have very few carnivores so

2. Selective sampling. (South America was not mentioned)

3. Many northern hemisphere animals were deliberately released into Au/NZ (foxes, rabbits, deer, birds) because of their familiarity, while very few (if any) sounthern hemisphere animals have been released in the North.

4. There are apparently pockets of wallabys up that way, so it is not a hard and fast rule.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

1. Australia/NZ have very few carnivores so

…our animals are not necessarily “less evolved”, just less evolved to handle bears/foxes/badgers

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

1. Australia/NZ have very few carnivores so

…our animals are not necessarily “less evolved”, just less evolved to handle bears/foxes/badgers

In his comment ‘higher on the scale’, he can only have been referring to the scale of evolution.

Maybe there are less niches in Australia so any successful adapter will disrupt disproportionally.

Under this point of view, the productions of Great Britain stand much higher in the scale than those of New Zealand”

Is Darwin right?

If so, why is this?

Assuming that this is the point of your post then no he was not quite right as there are very few extant “productions of Great Britain”. Most of the species found there are re-colonisations from greater Europe via glaciation events.

, but the humans
produced them from GB in the sense
of “bring forth”, despite
them strictly having arrived from continent,
and generally we know that LIFE that has to compete
against more other LIFE will
be better at competition,

SCIENCE said:

, but the humans
produced them from GB in the sense
of “bring forth”, despite
them strictly having arrived from continent,
and generally we know that LIFE that has to compete
against more other LIFE will
be better at competition,

Darwin was not only speaking of animals but clearly by the time NZ was colonised, there already existed species from around the world of both flora and fauna that could only have reached there by boat. Already well established from up to sixty years previous.

this, to me at least, seems like colonial nonsense…

diddly-squat said:

this, to me at least, seems like colonial nonsense…

It was written for colonial numbchucks to read. One can read what Darwin really wanted to say.

in evolutionary terms a highly infectious disease is at the pinnacle of the evilutionary game

if the species it infects starts dying out it mutates over to a new host like swine flu, bird flu

weeds and feral animals are in evolutionary terms at the higher end of darwins end game

the most successful animal wipes out all other competing animals

wookiemeister said:

the most successful animal wipes out all other competing animals

Successful short term perhaps as wiping out all competing animals might collapse the food chain and bring about its own demise. Intelligent tool users could perhaps survive this event as you have organised food growing, but intelligence is an evolutionary dead end, as not only do you adapt the environment to suit your own need instead of adapting to the environment but you can wipe yourselves out.

>animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt

You actually mean “less evolved”, i.e., more generalised, less adapted to specialised niches.

I wouldn’t be surprised if various wallabies and possums could thrive in Europe, given a chance. Feral wallaby spotted in Kent, UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz47ZFCat1g

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if various wallabies and possums could thrive in Europe, given a chance. Feral wallaby spotted in Kent, UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz47ZFCat1g

Budgies and now rainbow lorikeets are free. Budgies have naturalised a long time past. Possibly quarrion as well but recently a pair of lorikeets escaped.

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if various wallabies and possums could thrive in Europe, given a chance. Feral wallaby spotted in Kent, UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz47ZFCat1g

Yeah kangaroos do well over there, lush green grass and no predators.
Someone must be controlling them though, colonies of them have been reported over there more than 30 years ago, if they weren’t being controlled they’d be everywhere by now.

Bubblecar said:

>animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt

You actually mean “less evolved”, i.e., more generalised, less adapted to specialised niches.

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if various wallabies and possums could thrive in Europe, given a chance. Feral wallaby spotted in Kent, UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz47ZFCat1g

Yeah kangaroos do well over there, lush green grass and no predators.
Someone must be controlling them though, colonies of them have been reported over there more than 30 years ago, if they weren’t being controlled they’d be everywhere by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_kangaroo

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt

You actually mean “less evolved”, i.e., more generalised, less adapted to specialised niches.

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt

You actually mean “less evolved”, i.e., more generalised, less adapted to specialised niches.

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

Indeed and in Southern Australia at least, they’ll need it as climate alters.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>animalia and flora from the northern hemisphere was more highly evolved to adapt

You actually mean “less evolved”, i.e., more generalised, less adapted to specialised niches.

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

How do you think they would measure up against camels? Camels seem pretty drought resistant and survive well as feral animals in inland Australia.

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

How do you think they would measure up against camels? Camels seem pretty drought resistant and survive well as feral animals in inland Australia.

Roos can suspend gestation & being smaller require far less food & water.

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Well it doesn’t really matter but my point was that the European species by not having been isolated, had plenty of chance to evolve more widespread environmental adaptability in survival skills.

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

How do you think they would measure up against camels? Camels seem pretty drought resistant and survive well as feral animals in inland Australia.

We shall see after the camels run out of food.

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

Yep. That’s part of why Australia has the only wild population.

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

We get the last laugh with climate change. Kangaroos are much more drought adapted than placental mammals.

How do you think they would measure up against camels? Camels seem pretty drought resistant and survive well as feral animals in inland Australia.

Roos can suspend gestation & being smaller require far less food & water.

Which is very specialised.

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

I’ve been chased by a herd of wild camels near the shore of the dead sea

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

Do you know why Camels are called ships of the desert?

Because they are full of Arab seamen.

kangaroos are placental mammals and employ ‘Embryonic Diapause’ for eggs that are already fertilized, but not yet developed. (similar to IVF clinics freezing zygotes) but roos are much more clever and efficient at it.

Australia has more camels than Egypt

Australia is also the second most important place as far as endemic species go (both flora and fauna) trumped only by Madagascar, 13 times smaller than Australia

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

I’ve been chased by a herd of wild camels near the shore of the dead sea

Wow! Amazing!

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

I’ve been chased by a herd of wild camels near the shore of the dead sea

Is there anything you haven’t done?

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

I’ve been chased by a herd of wild camels near the shore of the dead sea

Is there anything you haven’t done?

acted as a sniper instructor for the special forces

Darwin’s notion was not correct, but he was not aware of the UK’s geological history of being covered on numerous occasions by snow and ice, making it uninhabitable. Consequently, the plants and animals that exist there today are largely highly adaptive colonising species, able to move into and thrive in most cool, moist environments.

Australia on the other hand is a very ancient land with considerably higher species diversity that is more specialised and often dependent on a single habitat. Whereas the European species can colonise most habitats that are reasonably cool and moist, and being colonising species are often faster growing and produce more seed or offspring than the indigenous species, which are specially adapted for long term survival in the local environment.

A higher level of evolution is not really applicable, but in this instance adaptability of the species is of greater importance. Having come from a comparatively young country (UK), where species diversity is low, a high adaptability is a prime requirement for success, then naturally they will be advantaged in climatically compatible habitats elsewhere, especially if there are fewer predators.

wookiemeister said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m no camel nor roo expert, but camels are very, very good at surviving on very little food and water for a long time.

I’ve been chased by a herd of wild camels near the shore of the dead sea

It was a Mossad hit squad in disguise. You know too much.

> Is Darwin right?

Pretty well.

> If so, why is this?

Have a look at my posting of the topic of “if all the animals in a big zoo were released in the wild – what would survive?”

I also like to think of this issue in terms of dinosaurs. Competition led to the evolution from protoceratops to triceratops and styracosaurus. In the absence of geologically-based extinction events the creatures on the largest land mass get bigger. GB, although a couple of islands, is related to the fauna and flora of neighbouring Europe and Asia. The bigger the continent the fiercer the competition – and this applies to plants as well as animals.

In the PRESENCE of geologically-based extinction events the creatures get smaller, often rapidly, as larger creatures require more air, water and food that the extinction event denies them. Survivors of geologically-based extinction events tend to be smaller and slower. And this counters the trend towards bigger and faster in other times.

Lost for words! Wookie makes more sense than mollwollfumble, with apologies to Wookie. There is something strange how you comment with such great authority on things you know nothing about and worst of all, you do it time and time again.

Don’t worry I am not coming back, only releasing steam and if mollwollfumble would refrain from making comment on environmental matters you will never hear from me again.

PermeateFree said:

Lost for words! Wookie makes more sense than mollwollfumble, with apologies to Wookie. There is something strange how you comment with such great authority on things you know nothing about and worst of all, you do it time and time again.

Don’t worry I am not coming back, only releasing steam and if mollwollfumble would refrain from making comment on environmental matters you will never hear from me again.

Oh don’t be like that.

Environmental matters encompass all.