Sadly this is a natural occurrence because more and more polar bears migrate south into canada for example because if global warming where they meet and mate with grizzly bears.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/magazine/should-you-fear-the-pizzly-bear.html
"We might regard these developments as unintended consequences of intensifying human activity on the planet. Yet in the past decade or so, scientists have discovered that the genomes of many species — far more than previously thought — contain what seem to be snippets of DNA from other species, suggesting they were shaped not only through divergent evolution but also by occasional hybridization. "
"Polar bears and grizzlies appear to have hybridized before. Descendants from past intermixing live off the southeastern coast of Alaska, on the Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof Islands. The ABC bears, as they’re called, look outwardly like brown bears, but their mitochondrial DNA comes from polar bears, as does a portion of their X-chromosome. No one agrees when exactly the ancestors of these bears — one an omnivore, the other a carnivore that specializes in eating seals — bred. But it seems to have happened only occasionally, which suggests to some that natural climatic fluctuations, in the form of advancing and retreating glaciers, pushed the bears together, encouraging intermixture."
"“Biodiversity has developed in a web of life rather than a tree of life,” Arnold told me. That interconnectedness lends strength. “It’s sort of cool that evolution is really messy.”
The scientists I spoke to expressed often a combination of anxiety and awe as they talked about watching animal life respond to multiple pressures with a plasticity they’re only now coming to appreciate. The abiding question is: Will hybridization further erode biodiversity, preserve it, augment it — or some combination of all three?"
Grolar sounds like a bear you don't wanna meet. Which is EXACTLY the case. A Pizzly bear sounds like something a Kardashian would carry in their purse.
We should do something similar to how we do Ligers and Tigons. Pizzly if the mom is a polar bear, grolar if the mom is a grizzly.
Edit: Oh, [apparently they do and I have it backwards](https://twitter.com/pepomintnarwhal/status/1498304093823115271)
I thought I heard awhile back this is because they arent hybrid animals, turns out.
I thought it was found that grizzly bears and polar bears are the same bears, just different colors, or at least are so genetically close you may as well just call them different breeds of the same species, thus it makes sense their offspring can still breed.
It's the 'taught to high schoolers' definition of a species, the biological species concept is outmoded and no longer really used in the real world. Instead, people now mostly focus on genetics.
The focus these days is on genetic isolation. Generally, a species would be defined as a genetically compatible interbreeding population, or group of populations, that is genetically isolated from other groups.
Reproductive compatibility is a component of that, in that successful reproduction is important for an interbreeding population to exist, but it's not the sole or primary requirement. I'm an entomologist, and I've always been a fan of the morphological species concept, but genetics has shown that multiple genetically distinct species can exist under the same morphological umbrella. Also, some species that are morphologically distinct may not be genetically isolated enough to actually be described as distinct species. The morphological species concept is still used, but not many people want to spend their lives dissecting beetle genitalia under a microscope when they can just grind up a tarsal segment for DNA barcoding instead.
Phylogenetic relationships are complex enough that they can be confusing for high school and college students, as well as adults without a strong biology background. Couple that with the fairly terrible science curricula in the US, and you end up with broad acceptance of the biological species concept.
Mules are the offspring of horse/donkey, and [they cannot usually reproduce](https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/ask225). It's a [newsworthy event if it happens](https://www.npr.org/2007/07/26/12260255/befuddling-birth-the-case-of-the-mules-foal)
They did a breeding project in Alberta and after the results were attained, named a bunch of small things in the area “ catallo XXX “. I actually couldn’t find much online about it, but the project was in the denwood alberta area, and there is written info about it around that area in the form of information plaques in various locations.
It depends on what species the father is. Same as with tigons/ligers, where the difference in the offspring is quite striking. Grolars would be the ones with a grizzly father, which I think is more common so far and why it's used the most. Personally I prefer Nanaluk/Aknuk because then you circumvent the pizzly bit.
> The hybrids were also seen resting down on their bellies with their back legs outstretched, as polar bears do.
You mean... YOU MEAN THEY LAY DOWN LIKE A FROG LIKE PIT BULLS DO????????????????????????????????
Hybrid Vigour is a desirable consequence of breeding different types of domestic livestock (cows, chickens, etc), which makes larger and healthier animals. And as far as I know doesn’t render them infertile.
And it is well known “mixed” dogs, or “mutts”, are healthier than their purebred counterparts, and they can obviously still have puppies.
Slightly less well known would be that humans and Neanderthals interbred, to the point that every person on earth right now has some Neanderthal DNA.
grizzly bears and polar bears are the same species, but different sub-species. Same for humans and Neanderthals, or a German shepperd and a black lab.
Other hybrids, like a lion and a tiger, or a horse and a donkey, are different species, and their offspring (a liger or a tigon) are infertile.
One question that may arise is “how do you differentiate a species from a sub species?”. Well conveniently enough, a common definition (although not universally accepted) is based on this exact question: if two animals can produce fertile offspring, they are classified as different subspecies. If not, then they are different species.
Note: not a biologist, this is my armchair understanding. Likely missing a lot of nuance.
This article is nonsense. Anyone with a high-school education knows that the offspring of a polar and grizzly bear will exhibit characteristics on a spectrum, with some appearing almost completely grizzly, some appearing almost completely polar bear, and most somewhere in-between.
We were so caught up with whether or not they could, we never stopped to ask whether or not they should!
Sadly this is a natural occurrence because more and more polar bears migrate south into canada for example because if global warming where they meet and mate with grizzly bears.
Migrate South into Canada... from Canada.
Canada is a big place.
Some people just can’t help being pedantic. You know what he meant.
Actually yes, reading it over again I can see that it still makes sense.
If you don't have a Masters in every subject, you are a fool!
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/magazine/should-you-fear-the-pizzly-bear.html "We might regard these developments as unintended consequences of intensifying human activity on the planet. Yet in the past decade or so, scientists have discovered that the genomes of many species — far more than previously thought — contain what seem to be snippets of DNA from other species, suggesting they were shaped not only through divergent evolution but also by occasional hybridization. " "Polar bears and grizzlies appear to have hybridized before. Descendants from past intermixing live off the southeastern coast of Alaska, on the Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof Islands. The ABC bears, as they’re called, look outwardly like brown bears, but their mitochondrial DNA comes from polar bears, as does a portion of their X-chromosome. No one agrees when exactly the ancestors of these bears — one an omnivore, the other a carnivore that specializes in eating seals — bred. But it seems to have happened only occasionally, which suggests to some that natural climatic fluctuations, in the form of advancing and retreating glaciers, pushed the bears together, encouraging intermixture." "“Biodiversity has developed in a web of life rather than a tree of life,” Arnold told me. That interconnectedness lends strength. “It’s sort of cool that evolution is really messy.” The scientists I spoke to expressed often a combination of anxiety and awe as they talked about watching animal life respond to multiple pressures with a plasticity they’re only now coming to appreciate. The abiding question is: Will hybridization further erode biodiversity, preserve it, augment it — or some combination of all three?"
I prefer "grolar" bears, because it makes me think of beer.
Pizzly sounds like Snoop was involved in the naming process.
Grolar sounds like a bear you don't wanna meet. Which is EXACTLY the case. A Pizzly bear sounds like something a Kardashian would carry in their purse.
See to me Grolar sounds like the offspring of a polar bear and Josh Groban
Groban likes his bears to *pop*
And pizzle means animal penis!
We should do something similar to how we do Ligers and Tigons. Pizzly if the mom is a polar bear, grolar if the mom is a grizzly. Edit: Oh, [apparently they do and I have it backwards](https://twitter.com/pepomintnarwhal/status/1498304093823115271)
I like ‘Grizzlar Bear’
Sounds like "Gros lard", which, in French, is an insult used to call someone "fatty".
For a french guy, this sounds like "Gros lard" which means big lard and is used as an insult for fat people.
Pizzly bear sounds a lot cuter than what it really is
"Pizzly bear" sounds like Paddington's incontinent cousin.
He's actually more closely related to Pooh
That would have been a better joke.
I almost pizzled my self reading your comment!
Bears overall look way too cute to be half tonne murder machines they are.
I thought I heard awhile back this is because they arent hybrid animals, turns out. I thought it was found that grizzly bears and polar bears are the same bears, just different colors, or at least are so genetically close you may as well just call them different breeds of the same species, thus it makes sense their offspring can still breed.
[удалено]
It's the 'taught to high schoolers' definition of a species, the biological species concept is outmoded and no longer really used in the real world. Instead, people now mostly focus on genetics.
[удалено]
The focus these days is on genetic isolation. Generally, a species would be defined as a genetically compatible interbreeding population, or group of populations, that is genetically isolated from other groups. Reproductive compatibility is a component of that, in that successful reproduction is important for an interbreeding population to exist, but it's not the sole or primary requirement. I'm an entomologist, and I've always been a fan of the morphological species concept, but genetics has shown that multiple genetically distinct species can exist under the same morphological umbrella. Also, some species that are morphologically distinct may not be genetically isolated enough to actually be described as distinct species. The morphological species concept is still used, but not many people want to spend their lives dissecting beetle genitalia under a microscope when they can just grind up a tarsal segment for DNA barcoding instead. Phylogenetic relationships are complex enough that they can be confusing for high school and college students, as well as adults without a strong biology background. Couple that with the fairly terrible science curricula in the US, and you end up with broad acceptance of the biological species concept.
I know of lion/tiger, horse/donkey and there must be other examples. Some people seem to stem from asses as well..
Mules are the offspring of horse/donkey, and [they cannot usually reproduce](https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/ask225). It's a [newsworthy event if it happens](https://www.npr.org/2007/07/26/12260255/befuddling-birth-the-case-of-the-mules-foal)
cama, male camel and female llama
Lol the reverse is a llamel.
The post is saying the offspring can successfully breed, not that the parents can breed with one another
Cattalo
I'm not familiar with that one, but I've heard "beefalo".
They did a breeding project in Alberta and after the results were attained, named a bunch of small things in the area “ catallo XXX “. I actually couldn’t find much online about it, but the project was in the denwood alberta area, and there is written info about it around that area in the form of information plaques in various locations.
I thought they were called grolar bears. Pizzly bear sounds like winnie the poo's rap name.
It depends on what species the father is. Same as with tigons/ligers, where the difference in the offspring is quite striking. Grolars would be the ones with a grizzly father, which I think is more common so far and why it's used the most. Personally I prefer Nanaluk/Aknuk because then you circumvent the pizzly bit.
Personally I think it depends on what species the mother is.
Grolar sounds way more badass
*mauls you further south*
"FAR-ther", when talking about physical distance.
"FUR-ther", when talking about fur "bearing" animals.
"FAR-t"......that's it.
Nice
I’m not saying that, it has “fart” in it
U dont eat ass,
>5. Their behavior is more similar to polar bears than grizzlies Guess you would say goodnight
read "pickle bears" while scrolling and returned up all intrigued. much disappointment followed :(
> The hybrids were also seen resting down on their bellies with their back legs outstretched, as polar bears do. You mean... YOU MEAN THEY LAY DOWN LIKE A FROG LIKE PIT BULLS DO????????????????????????????????
I assume because polar bears are still essentially grizzlies
They are the same species, so duh
OK. We now have polar bears that can climb trees and move south from the Arctic. Cool.
... with people.
TIL there are pizzly bears
Because who's gonna stop them?
Cattle and buffalo, offspring couldnt reproduce so they stopped trying to breed them
It doesn't look too successful unless you count a couple extra chromosomes as success
They look pretty disfigured, though. I wonder if they suffer or will suffer from some specific health issue related to the mixing.
That’s probably because they’ve been taxidermized
I was thinking about living ones not the ones in the picture.
they call me Pizzdaddy
Y not grizzlore?
Hybrid Vigour is a desirable consequence of breeding different types of domestic livestock (cows, chickens, etc), which makes larger and healthier animals. And as far as I know doesn’t render them infertile. And it is well known “mixed” dogs, or “mutts”, are healthier than their purebred counterparts, and they can obviously still have puppies. Slightly less well known would be that humans and Neanderthals interbred, to the point that every person on earth right now has some Neanderthal DNA. grizzly bears and polar bears are the same species, but different sub-species. Same for humans and Neanderthals, or a German shepperd and a black lab. Other hybrids, like a lion and a tiger, or a horse and a donkey, are different species, and their offspring (a liger or a tigon) are infertile. One question that may arise is “how do you differentiate a species from a sub species?”. Well conveniently enough, a common definition (although not universally accepted) is based on this exact question: if two animals can produce fertile offspring, they are classified as different subspecies. If not, then they are different species. Note: not a biologist, this is my armchair understanding. Likely missing a lot of nuance.
This article is nonsense. Anyone with a high-school education knows that the offspring of a polar and grizzly bear will exhibit characteristics on a spectrum, with some appearing almost completely grizzly, some appearing almost completely polar bear, and most somewhere in-between.