Orangutan Genome Sequenced

Nature has published an article detailing the draft sequence of a Sumatran orang-utan genome. Unravelling an organism's genome reveals its complete DNA sequence, allowing us access to all of its hereditary information.

The paper (Locke et al., 2011) indicates that the genome of the Sumatran orang-utan has evolved more slowly than that of the other great apes. Geneticists can determine this sort of thing by looking at gene arrangement and, for example, whether or not individual sequences are duplicated or repeated. It also gives an estimate of the speciation time for the two orang-utan species, and suggests that they split from each other as recently as 400,000 years ago.

The team also studied short read sequence data, from both Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans, and found the Sumatran species to be more genetically diverse than the Bornean orang-utan. In a hypothetical situation where human impact couldn't influence the survival prospects of either species, this higher genetic diversity would give the Sumatran orangutan an advantage over the Bornean orangutan. This is because more genetically diverse populations are generally more able to adapt to a changing environment and better equipped to survive disease outbreaks. However, Sumatran orang-utan populations are suffering, with numbers thought to be as low as 7,000 indivuals, whereas the IUCN Red List website offers estimates of 45,000 - 69,000 for the Bornean orang-utan. Both species remain threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, fires and poaching for the pet trade. Unfortuantely for the Sumatran orang-utan, these are things that are unlikely to be dodged by having a high genetic diversity, which means it's down to us to make sure we don't force the orang-utan into the dark depths of extinction.

(For more technical information, see the full paper: Locke et al., (2011)Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes. Nature 469, 529–533.

Spying Monkeys?

I don't know how this tale has escaped my notice for so long!

The story goes that during the Napoleonic Wars a ship came into difficulty near the coast at Hartlepool. The ship turned out to be French and had a mascot on board: A monkey.

Local men found the monkey, dressed in French military uniform, washed up on the beach and apparently took the monkey to trial for being a French spy! The monkey was then hung to death from the mast of a nearby fishing boat.

Supporters of the legend claimed that a bone washed up in 2005 once belonged to The Monkey. A closer look identified it as a bone of a red deer.

And it gets more bizarre... In 2002, the Hartlepool United Football Club mascot (yes, it was a monkey) was elected mayor of Hartlepool. His election campaign slogan was 'Free bananas for schoolchildren'.

What are our woodlands worth?

Back in November a report was published called 'The Forestry Commission and the sale of public forests in England', which concluded that the sale of public forest estate was inevitable due to governmental spending constraints. What wasn't predicted was the current talk of selling off all land managed by the Forestry Commission, and it has split public opinion quite nicely down the middle.

The 'It's not so bad' Arguement
If the woodlands to be sold could be guaranteed a future, guaranteed appropriate management and guaranteed not to be sold off to developers, then the release of them from government control may not be such a bad thing. It could give greater control to local wildlife trusts and devolve power to those more in the know, perhaps, than a public body such as the Forestry Commission. Commentators sitting in this camp are also likely to mention the fact that many nature reserves are already privately owned and managed by individuals, or that businesses fund various parts of conservation measures in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, for the writing of this paragraph, I do not hold these opinions so I'll swiftly move on to the counter-arguement.

The 'Up-in-arms about it' Arguement
Think about England. Imagine you've just met somebody abroad who has never had access to a television or the internet and you're asked to describe the place. It's an opportunity to sell this little country as best you can, and apart from an obligatory mention of London's sights, The Beatles and copious amounts of tea-drinking, you look for something else that epitomises our nation. Unless you're a city fanatic, surely you wouldn't fail to mention the English countryside? The coastline, the green fields, the woodlands...

The woodlands we have left are under threat if they're sold off. If these woodlands cannot be sold to one buyer then some of them will undoubtedly be lost. If they can be sold to one organisation with good intentions, then fabulous, maybe this can work out okay, but what sort of organisation has enough spare cash to buy 635,000 acres of ancient and royal forests, heathlands and woods? Non-governmental organisations do a wonderful job of managing natural areas in the UK, but even huge organisations like the National Trust and the RSPB have to think about how to manage their existing land; buying all of this extra forested land would be a huge commitment. If the government resort to selling to the highest bidders, who's to say that developers won't get their hands on huge areas of our precious forests? Nobody can promise that, and this is why I think that this is a very bad idea.

Yesterday, 3,000 people made their feelings known at a protest march in the Forest of Dean. Protesters worried that privatising Britain's largest ancient oak forest would result in limited access to the public and increased commercial activities within the forest. Other famous forests in the firing line are the New Forest and Sherwood Forest. Whatever would Robin Hood make of all this? He'd probably be backing something along the lines of 'steal from the rich and give to the poor', rather than 'steal our forests from future generations to make up a small part of the deficit'.

"We will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and biodiverse forests", said a spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It's hard to take this entirely seriously when "We will not increase tuition fees" is a wound still fresh.

If you haven't gauged my opinion on this yet, then David Bellamy sums it up nicely: "The green heart of Britain is not for sale." You tell 'em David. It would be so very sad to lose even more of our forests.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you!

I had quite a good 2010, even in primatical terms, with finding an animal care job being quite a positive landmark in the year. The highlight for me though was the Hope 4 Apes event held at the Lyceum Theatre, London, in December.

The evening was hosted by Sir David Attenborough, with talks given by ape enthusiasts such as Dr. Jane Goodall DBE (chimpanzees), Ian Redmond OBE (gorillas), Dr Jo Thompson (bonobos), Dr Birute Galdikas (orang-utans) and Chanee (gibbons). The nicest thing was the hopeful theme that connected the talks, which must have stirred the faintest slither of optimism in even the most skeptical, pragmatic, grumpy old conservationist. If you missed it, don't despair, for there is a DVD of the event in production which I will of course bring to your attention as soon as I hear about it!

If that line-up didn't nearly finish me off with excitement, the day before was the icing on the cake as I stumbled across a Jane Goodall book signing in Regent Street at the National Geographic Store. Having discovered it online quite by accident the day before, I dragged my long-suffering friend along and we were treated to a fascinating in-store talk before managing to get the new book signed, as well as an ageing copy of In the Shadow of Man.

It's unlikely then that 2011 can get much better but I'll keep my fingers crossed, and I hope that the coming year will bring you all the opportunities you want, or even just the will-power to seek them out! Good luck.