China’s runaway pollution is close to forcing one of the most beautiful creatures into extinction. The Hong Kong Dolphin Society is reporting that the population of rare Chinese white dolphins (known as pink dolphins for their unique color) are almost wiped out. A tragic picture was captured recently of one of the few remaining mothers trying to support her dead calf in the waters outside of Hong Kong — the victim of extreme pollution in the Pearl River Delta.
The numbers of pink dolphin has plummeted. In 2003, there were only 158. By 2011, there were only 78. Now, they are nearly gone entirely. Toxins in the water have killed off the dolphins like the baby calf. While a tourist attraction, pink dolphins now expose tourists to the sad reality of a country which turns a blind eye to the worsening environmental conditions for animals and people alike.
The species may still be found outside of China, though it is listed as “near-threatened.” The dolphin has long been a symbol of Hong Kong, as it was during the handover from Britain. Now, children will have to look at pictures as the toxins in the waters continue to rise around Hong Kong.
Source: France24
Gene,
He is getting deeper and deeper into the appeal to authority. Most scientists I know usually respond to correspondence like that with a polite, “thank you for writing,” and a referral to some journal article or appellate court ruling. One fellow I know always encloses an invoice for his time with his reply to such inquires.
Actually you’ve already gotten far to “into this” by spreading your distortive twaddle in the first place. Repetition wouldn’t be necessary if you’d realize you are simply wrong and fail to differentiate between a species and a subspecies in your 10,000 claim versus what was said about about the 2500 hundred number for the subspecies. As for failing to read, check the header informaion:
Scientific Name: Sousa chinensis
Species Authority: (Osbeck, 1765)
Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:
See Sousa chinensis (eastern Taiwan Strait subpopulation)
Common Name/s:
English – Chinese White Dolphin, Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin, Indo-pacific Hump-backed Dolphin, Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin
Once again, that 10,000 number is for a larger sampling of of S.c. than just the Chinese White Dolphin (S.c.c.). Not all of the Chinensis type are of the S.c.c. subspecies, but apparently that fact is lost on you.
I’ll give you an A for hard headed. You still fail on factual accuracy.
And I seriously doubt someone as logic and fact impaired such as yourself could teach anyone anything of value.
Gene –
Yes, the entire article is about the entire species, but read further and it discusses the two subspecies separately, the Chinensis type and the Plumbea type, and it gives estimates for each subspecies — Chinensis being over 10,000 and Plumbea being possibly under 10,000 and therefore if taken alone qualifying for Vulnerable status instead of Near Threatened status. You refuse to understand what I have pointed out to you, that the word “type” used here refers to what you call a subspecies.
OS – the appeal to authority is Gene’s. I am just facilitating him and trying to speak his language. I had actually unsubscribed from Turley’s blog entirely, considering it a waste of time, but on reflection outside my office here, I thought, well, if he wants authority from this young Dr. Hung, I will just write him and get it for him. Won’t take me more than five minutes to do that.
And just to be clear, since extrapolation clearly poses a problem for you, the proper question to Dr. Hung would be, “Are there less than 2500 S.c.c. and is that population in decline?”
David,
You’re not very bright, are you?
From your cited six year old and older data under the heading “Population” . . .
Those numbers don’t add up to even close to 10,000 for S.c.c. subspecies. Why? Because that 10,000 number is for the whole species S.c., not for the subspecies S.c.c. In the latest report, he’s citing data about the S.c.c. showing a trend downward in contrast to Jefferson’s older 2005 data. I guess the example of carrier pigeons was just too complex to make you understand the difference between a species and a subspecies. It’s the subspecies S.c.c. in decline that is the salient matter of the source article, not the overall population of S.c.
Which is not the same thing as . . .
“I have attempted to clarify to an attorney that your numbers refer to a subpopulation around Hong Kong, and that you do not mean to suggest that the chinensis type dolphins are in immediate danger of going extinct.”
Which is a straw man argument. You do know what that is, don’t you? Let me help with that: A straw man is a type of argument, an informal logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. The use of “attacking a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and to refute it without ever having actually refuted the original position. My contention has not been that S.c. is a small and declining population, but rather that S.c.c. is a small and declining population . . . as indicated in this source article when it said,
. . . which is perfectly in line with my contention and belies your non-sequitur about the S.c. population as compared to the S.c.c. population.
Not only do you have a pronounced problem with a propensity to make up definitions to suit you, Mr. “Subjective Proof”, but apparently you have a reading comprehension problem as well. They are addressing the S.c.c. in that quote, not the S.c. There may be 10,000ish S.c. but that doesn’t mitigate the declining S.c.c. population of less than 2500.
You can keep your wrong words and logical fallacies out of my mouth.
They don’t belong in mine.
They look good on you though. 🙄
Did you honestly think material misrepresentation of a lawyer’s words was a tactic that wasn’t doomed to failure? Strike that. You’ve already demonstrated that thinking isn’t your strong point.
Carry on.
Gene H wrote:
“Those numbers don’t add up to even close to 10,000 for S.c.c. subspecies. Why? Because that 10,000 number is for the whole species S.c., not for the subspecies S.c.c.”
Wrong. Pay attention. The heading in your quote is “Chinensis- type.” It is staring you right in the face. They use the word “type” to avoid the taxonomic debate. This is talking about the subspecies Sousa chinensis chinensis. Some think maybe it should be considered a separate species. Keep in mind that red list categorization is evaluated for the whole species, not for one subspecies, so they discuss what might be if the two subspecies were considered separate species. Counselor, you are way outside your area of expertise on this one. The reason the numbers don’t add up for you is because the studies cover less than 10% of their geographical range. Such is stated right in that report that gives the 10,000 figure for this subspecies. So multiply the total numbers by 10 to get something in the ballpark of the total estimated population size. For example, 10 * 2500 = 25,000 or 10 * 1200 = 12,000.
I did not present a strawman. Read more carefully. I was not representing your position but rather my position. I made a criticism of this article by Turley which says “near extinction” and “now nearly gone entirely” and “toxins in the water have killed off the dolphins.” You challenged my comments, claiming that the dolphins are “endangered” but only recently suggesting you meant “in danger” instead of the red list classification of endangered. I never misrepresented you. The representation of you that I made was that you would accept Dr. Hung’s position of authority on the matter. If you don’t like what I wrote to him, then you should write him yourself. Obviously I am going to write him from my informed perspective as a biologist rather than from your gross misunderstanding of the material from which you quote.
Don’t expect me to be too involved with this. It is clear that you are more interested in debating rhetoric rather than knowledge. For you that provides sport, but for me it gets tediously boring. Repetition is the tool of the teacher, but clearly you do not consider yourself to be a student so this banter must soon end because it is becoming far too repetitious.
“I have an interest that a public forum would offer accurate information.”
That’s pretty funny considering your track record of distortions to date.
“I think debating taxonomy is beyond the scope of this forum”
Again, I don’t care what you think, only what you can prove.
“but I am not going to let you get away with suggesting that this entire subspecies numbers less than 2500.”
Take it up with Dr. Hung.
“As for the terms race and subspecies, Nal referenced an article by Alan Templeton that gives the background for how biologists use the term race as synonymous with subspecies. The entire thrust of that article depends upon this congruency of terms to make the case that human races do not exist. OS referenced a talk by Kittle making the same case that human races do not exist. Their idea is that our perceived differences of race in humans are based in cultural perception and bias.”
Too bad for you the molecular genetics back up this contention. Race as applied to humans is a social construct, not a biological reality.
[emphasis added]
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
“I personally have my own disagreements with this approach, perceiving it to be agenda driven science based in political correctness, but you have made it clear that you don’t care what I think so I will leave it alone for now. Suffice it to say that their approach has resulted in a lot of semantic confusion as illustrated by the responses here in this forum.”
You mean like your agenda driven distortions of science to claim that a subspecies population is much larger than the scientists studying that population claim?
“Instead of saying that they are near extinction, it says that they are in danger.”
You don’t say. Then why all the b*tching about my use of the word “endanger”?
endanger /ɪnˈdeɪn(d)ʒə, ɛn-/, v.,
:put (someone or something) at risk or in danger:
“We need to work toward stopping pollution, protecting these animals, and being good steward of this earth, but we need to do that honestly and accurately. Instead of fighting each other, we should be in agreement on this issue.”
And we do agree on that point, however, your contention – against the evidence of the experts – that S.c.c. is not a subspecies population in decline is crap. Dr. Hung contends that based on the trending population data that the subspecies S.c.c. is seriously at risk of extinction due to pollution and increasing human intrusion into their environment. From the source:
That is the sound of the final gasping chirps of a canary in a coal mine. Whether you choose to ignore that or not is your choice, but I think I’m going to rely upon the statements based on data collected by a cetacean biologist over the opinion of some random anonymous Internet subscriber who doesn’t even apparently understand the basics of taxonomy much less biology.
You may not like “minutiae”, but the Devil is in the details. You took a statement about a species as whole and distorted it by false equivalence to make a claim that is simply not true about the subspecies. To return to the earlier example, the threat of zero carrier pigeons is not mitigated by the millions of other pigeons out there.
Gene wrote: “Take it up with Dr. Hung.”
I think you are the one who should take it up with him, but just to be thorough, I wrote the following letter to him on your behalf:
Dear Dr. Hung,
I value very much all your conservation efforts with cetaceans. You have been quoted in the press recently regarding the declining numbers of the Pink Dolphin (Chinese White Dolphin / Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin – Sousa chinensis chinensis) in the waters around Hong Kong. The article indicated that the numbers dropped from 158 in 2003 to only 78 in 2011, and that now in 2013, they are almost gone entirely. I have attempted to clarify to an attorney that your numbers refer to a subpopulation around Hong Kong, and that you do not mean to suggest that the chinensis type dolphins are in immediate danger of going extinct. I have referenced information from the IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/20424/0) which indicates the numbers for this subspecies is possibly over 10,000. Quote: “… it is possible that the total population numbers in the low tens of thousands…” Unfortunately, this lawyer says that he takes your word over mine, and he is quite intent that you are the authority to which he will listen. Can you provide confirmation or clarification for me that I can pass on to this lawyer?
It is my understanding that your main concern regarding conservation efforts are the development projects which seem to be hurting the dolphins frequenting Hong Kong. It seems that they are in danger of leaving the area because it is becoming increasingly inhospitable to them. Their habitat in the area is being destroyed.
I realize your time is valuable, so I have constructed the following simple question that can be answered with a single word, yes or no. You may answer it with a single word, or offer whatever other comments you deem to be appropriate. I look forward to your response.
Do you concur with the IUCN assessment that it is possible that the total numbers for Sousa chinensis chinensis throughout their known range is in the low tens thousands?
I’m sure we would, OS. I’m a big fan of what family of yours I’ve met to date. BTW, have you seen the Verizon commercial that tracks the lil’ red headed baby until he’s in college showing his mom his first place via video call? I think of Jack every time I see that one. 😀
Gene, you and my granddaughter would get along famously. She is a polymath too. Her idea of fun is to poke roadkill with a stick.
Oh, sure, Nal and OS! Waltz right in the with actual definition of race and ruin all the fun I was going to have at David’s expense later, why don’t ya? 😉
Nah! Who am I kidding? You two know I share my toys.
Davidm, race is not a subspecies, vernacular or otherwise.
Race is real, but probably not the way you think. There are inherited traits in people, often caused by climate and other environmental factors, but to identify a race by skin color, eye shape and other superficial factors do not make “race.” No more than blondes are a different race from redheads. Race, as we know it, is a social construct based on appearances.
There is only one biological race in humans, and that is Homo sapiens sapiens Racism does exist, and it is destructive to the social fabric of society. Race is not a subspecies. Race as biology is a myth.
TED talk by Rick Kittles, PhD (University of Illinois at Chicago) is the host.
david2575:
From Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective (pdf):
Hence, human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation. A more modem definition of race is that of a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans.
There is nothing to see here, OS. According to some, it’s all going to be alright because the threat to S.c.c. of a small and declining population is overblown as there are tens of thousands of S.c. out there. Just like it’s all going to alright because the threat of zero carrier pigeons is mitigated by the millions of other pigeons out there. 🙄
I’ll get the popcorn. This is about to turn interesting.
Then maybe you should use the proper terminology. I hope in private that you realize you haven’t proven anything about the story in question which is about the subspecies Sousa chinensis chinensis being at risk, not the species S. chinensis. I know it’s going to be a leap for you to understand that a subspecies isn’t the equivalent of an entire species and the numbers you want to use are a false equivalence in discussing the matter at hand which is the less than 2500 S.c.c. showing a significant downward trend in their population. One of yet another in a long line of logical errors you’ve made here.
And for the record, I argue for sport. Sport. But at least I’m not disingenuous in my assertions by false equivalence.
Gene H wrote: “I know it’s going to be a leap for you to understand that a subspecies isn’t the equivalent of an entire species and the numbers you want to use are a false equivalence in discussing the matter at hand which is the less than 2500 S.c.c. showing a significant downward trend in their population.”
You continually make inane comments that for the most part I ignore because addressing them would distract from more important information. I write primarily because I have an interest that a public forum would offer accurate information. I warned previously that there was some taxonomic dispute about these dolphins because I expected you would get us wrapped up in that. You scoffed at me for saying it yet here we are, as I had predicted, with you hinging your statements on the language of taxonomy. I think debating taxonomy is beyond the scope of this forum, but I am not going to let you get away with suggesting that this entire subspecies numbers less than 2500. If the numbers really were that low, and if they were distributed only in the manner you have led us to believe, there is little doubt that they would be listed as endangered, probably critically endangered. However, the numbers for this SUBSPECIES (only because YOU want to focus on subspecies) is thought to be over 10,000. If this subspecies were considered to be its own species, and the number fell to just under 10,000, the categorization would be raised to vulnerable instead of near threatened. It seems to me that you previously agreed that their status was near threatened, even though you also keep calling them endangered and continue to mock me for the reminder that they are not endangered.
The subspecies, Sousa chinensis chinensis, is not limited to the Hong Kong waters, nor even limited just to the Pearl River Delta. This subspecies has higher numbers than the other subspecies, Sousa chinensis plumbea. Quoting from the IUCN page linked to previously, “The available abundance estimates for the chinensis-type humpback dolphin range from a few dozen to over 1,200 for the few small areas of the geographic form’s range that have been studied so far (less than 10%). Although it is possible that the total population numbers in the low tens of thousands, there is no evidence to suggest there are more than that and some reason to suspect the relatively large subpopulation in the Pearl River Estuary, estimated at about 1,200-1,300 individuals, is exceptional.” So the current estimates for the chinensis subspecies is that they number over 10,000, placing them in near threatened status very close to being moved to the vulnerable status. Nobody is even talking about moving them into the endangered status, nor are they even talking about their possible extinction, despite what you, OS, or Turley might say.
As for the terms race and subspecies, Nal referenced an article by Alan Templeton that gives the background for how biologists use the term race as synonymous with subspecies. The entire thrust of that article depends upon this congruency of terms to make the case that human races do not exist. OS referenced a talk by Kittle making the same case that human races do not exist. Their idea is that our perceived differences of race in humans are based in cultural perception and bias.
I personally have my own disagreements with this approach, perceiving it to be agenda driven science based in political correctness, but you have made it clear that you don’t care what I think so I will leave it alone for now. Suffice it to say that their approach has resulted in a lot of semantic confusion as illustrated by the responses here in this forum.
Gene, you previously posted a link to an article at UPI.com, http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/07/Chinas-pollution-putting-pink-dolphins-in-danger/7381367964901/#ixzz2StyDgvxc
This article is much more the approach that needs to be taken in arguing for the preservation of these dolphins. Instead of saying that they are near extinction, it says that they are in danger. Instead of implying that the dolphins are being killed off by toxins in the water near Hong Kong, it suggests that the dolphins are being driven away from there and living elsewhere. “It is hard to say if they will leave Hong Kong permanently … but [the trend] will become worse and worse.”
We need to work toward stopping pollution, protecting these animals, and being good steward of this earth, but we need to do that honestly and accurately. Instead of fighting each other, we should be in agreement on this issue.
I don’t care what you think, David. I care what you can prove. So far, that’s not much.
However, this? Is funny. “You do know that specifying Sousa chinensis chinensis represents a particular race rather than species, right?”
You do know that race isn’t a taxonomic definition, right?
It goes:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus (Genus/Subgenus), Species (Species/Subspecies).
If you don’t understand the basics, why should we think you understand the more complex issues?
Gene H-
Race is the vernacular term for a subspecies. It refers to populations that have common genetic distinctions from other populations, but the evolutionary distinctions are not so great that the populations cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. Unbelieveable. I don’t know whether you are just ignorant or you just like to spar. I hope you can finally concede, even if only in private, that this species of “Pink Dolphin” has numbers exceeding 10,000.
And Gene H –
What does the 2008 OLD data indicate? That the numbers were perhaps lower in the past than it is now (1200 instead of the current 2500), and you even quote the trend that “the population has shown no evidence of significant decline in the last 11 years (Jefferson 2005). Sometimes I think you don’t read, or if you do, you don’t understand what you read. Your only remark to me is that the data is old so proves nothing? When considering biological systems, we compare trends, numbers from 2005, 2008, 2013, etc. Give me a break. I’m done.
Why, yes. I am funny. Thanks for noticing. I often have great fun exposing people who propagandize or otherwise distort arguments.
However, from your link:
“Chinensis-type
Studies have been carried out in only a few parts of the chinensis-type’s range, and there is no overall estimate of total population size. Certain subpopulations are thought to be depleted, mostly by habitat destruction/degradation and bycatch in fisheries. Most abundance estimates have been less than a few hundred dolphins, but there appear to be at least 1,200 animals (CVs range from 17-119%) in the Pearl River Estuary of southern China, adjacent to and including Hong Kong and Macau (Jefferson 2000, Jefferson 2005). The Pearl River Estuary population is the only one for this geographic form with quantitative data on population trends, and despite the heavy development in the area and numerous threats, the population has shown no evidence of significant decline in the last 11 years (Jefferson 2005).”
Hung was citing both much more recent data and speculating on the outcome of this year’s census data. His older data is also cited by your reference as well as Jefferson’s work. Using older data to attempt to prove a point is a process (and an informal logical fallacy) known as cherry picking.
Still grasping for what constitutes evidence I see.
Gene H –
Oh my goodness, did you not read the following?
“When considering the status of the entire species Sousa chinensis (including both the chinensis-type and the plumbea-type together), the total population size probably consists of more than 10,000 mature individuals and therefore criterion C for Vulnerable would not apply (although as indicated below, it might apply to each of the two forms when assessed separately).”
You do know that specifying Sousa chinensis chinensis represents a particular race rather than species, right?
I don’t have to make you look like an idiot, David. You do a fine job of that all on your own.
Gene H –
LOL. You are funny.
“The actual number of remaining dolphins is not what’s important. The fact is that the dolphin population is being destroyed by pollution.”
Yep. The importance is found in the trend of the data, Mike A., but the rest of what you say is true too and not just for dolphins. I couldn’t sleep the other night (as so often happens) and I was watching a documentary on venoms and the medical applications derived from them. One of the herpetologists they were interviewing specialized in beaded lizards, gila monsters and their close cousins. He said that until recently that the gila monster and the beaded lizard were thought to be the only venomous lizards, but that he had discovered several others and it had been found out that the Komodo Dragon was actually venomous as well (up until then, it was thought that their lethality was primarily due to bacteria in their saliva). He went on to say that most of the species in question lived in habitats threatened by human intrusion and that “the only way they are going to be conserved is if people can make a profit”. A sad commentary on our stewardship.
The actual number of remaining dolphins is not what’s important. The fact is that the dolphin population is being destroyed by pollution. I’m not a biologist, let alone a marine biologist, but I have been a scuba diver for 32 years. I have personally observed the continual degradation of Florida’s coastal reef system over the years. The causes are well understood, but the truth is that the public is unwilling to do anything to protect the environment if it requires lifestyle changes. Greed and selfishness remain the most enduring and dangerous of human traits.
Mike Appleton – Thank you! Our society needs to be responsible stewards of planet Earth. That is what is important.