undefined | Better HN

0 points_Microft5y ago0 comments

Even hundreds or thousand of samples of a species would most likely still be an enormous genetic bottleneck. [0]

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

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

dredmorbius5y ago· 2 in thread

There are numerous vertebrate species with only a few thousand (or fewer) extant members. Many have been greatly reduced over the 20th century, some have been on a long decline before that. Some have been small / relict / outlier populations for much or all of human history.

Whether this means the bottleneck hypothesis is overstated, or that we're looking at a tremendous number of bottlenecks, isn't clear.

bpodgursky5y ago

The reproductive strategy of a species also matters. Species that produce hundreds or thousands of young (and then winnow down to the survivors) are better at quickly "breeding out" genetic flaws (if 50% of the young die, it's not a big deal), and have an easier time recovering from population bottlenecks.

Vs large mammals where raising one genetically-hobbled offspring (who then dies, or fails to reproduce) is a huge loss to the potential of the species.

dredmorbius5y ago

r/K selection theory, for the interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse