posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: loam
This image looks like a class lesson on how to remove something from an image in Photoshop (I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but it just
has that look).
But your article specifically notes this point:
In Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique, 90 per cent of elephants were slaughtered between 1977 and 1992, during the country's civil war. Dr
Poole said that because poachers disproportianetly targetted tusked animals, almost half the females over 35 years of age have no tusks, and although
poaching is now under control and the population is recovering well, they are passing the tuskless gene down to their daughters: 30 per cent of female
elephants born since the end of the war also do not have tusks.
Knowing what I know about nature, if tusks are a big advantage and necessary for the females to live a long life, the tusked gene pool will eventually
win out again. If not, look at the tusks like deer antlers--males have them, females do not, and the species survives just fine.
My overlying point being that, if tusks are irrelevant to the survival of the females and the species as a whole, the reality that many are born
without them is an irrelevant issue if they are tantamount to a vestigial organ, so to speak. If the outrage is behind the "why" (the animals being
hunted for their tusks), maybe it's a good thing that this mutation may bleed into and overtake the population--not ideal, like the article notes, but
an okay thing in the grand scheme of elephanthood.
Please note that I'm talking about necessity--yes, the article states that tusks are used to dig for food and water, amongst other things, but are
they able to do that well without them? The fact that there is such a high population of elephants without tusks surviving and repopulating the
species tells me that a tuskless elephant appears (on the surface, at least) to be doing just fine.
edit on 28-11-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)