The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies
Abstract
of the Act by well-intentioned government officials. The listing of certain species as endangered has encouraged an increase in investigation of these taxa, notably in molecular genetics and field ecology (1). In some cases the molecular genetic results contradicted previous ideas about species integrity or taxonomic distinctions that were based on phenotypic (morphological) descriptions. Unfortunately these traditional taxonomic designations have been and continue to be the bases for management and eligibility for protection. This is a significant problem because the Endangered Species Act not only protects listed taxa from hunting, habitat exploitation, and other perils associated with human coexistence, but also provides significant financial resources for the effort to protect these species and to stabilize their populations. To illustrate the problem we summarize the interpretive difficulties posed by molecular results for four endangered groups. The Florida panther. This is a small population of mountain lion (also called cougar or puma) that descended from the Felis concolor coryi subspecies that ranged throughout the southern United States in the 19th century (2). The few remaining panthers (c50) living in southern Florida show significant physiological and reproductive impairments that are likely the consequence of inbreeding depression. A recent allozyme and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of the population revealed that two very distinct genetic stocks were living in Florida (2), one that resembled other North American pumas and another that was more closely related to a puma subspecies that had evolved in South America. Apparently seven animals from a captive stock (that later turned out to be a mixture of authentic F. concolor coryi and South American founders) were released into the Everglades between 1957 and 1967 and promptly forgotten. Today the founder ecosystem contains a mixture of two subspecies. The genetic advantages of introducing some additional genetic material into a population suffering from inbreeding would have been comforting except for one detail. Three opinions from the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior (which is the counsel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have ruled with the force of precedent that hybrids between endangered species, subspecies, or populations cannot be protected. Their opinions, referred to here as the Hybrid Policy, concluded that protection of hybrids would not serve to recover listed species and would likely jeopardize S.J. O'Brien is chief of the Laboratory of Viral Carcinogenesis, National Cancer
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
Self-citationNowak, R. (1999) · doi:10.56021/9780801857898 · Cited by 4,102
Barton, N. H., & Hewitt, G. M. (1985) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.000553 · Cited by 2,882
Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals
Haldane, J. B. S. (1922) · Journal of Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf02983075 · Cited by 1,783
SPECIATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Shaffer, H. B. (1990) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb03859.x · Cited by 1,604
OXFORD SURVEYS IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Allendorf, F. W. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02584.x · Cited by 1,449
Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies
Ryder, O. A. (1986) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(86)90059-5 · Cited by 1,246
The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species
Coulter, M. W., & Mech, L. D. (1971) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3799810 · Cited by 1,151
Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones
Barton, N. H., & Hewitt, G. M. (1989) · Nature · doi:10.1038/341497a0 · Cited by 1,101
Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences
Meyer, A., Kocher, T. D., Basasibwaki, P., & Wilson, A. C. (1990) · Nature · doi:10.1038/347550a0 · Cited by 940
Cited by
Population Genetic Consequences of Small Population Size: Implications for Plant Conservation
Ellstrand, N. C. (1993) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.24.1.217 · Cited by 2,631
Hybridization as an invasion of the genome
Mallet, J. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.010 · Cited by 2,196
The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines
Allendorf, F. W., Leary, R. F., Spruell, P., & Wenburg, J. K. (2001) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02290-x · Cited by 1,533
Host races in plant–feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation
Drès, M., & Mallet, J. (2002) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1059 · Cited by 909
Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation: a critical review
MORITZ, C. (1994) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.1994.tb00080.x · Cited by 787
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Brien, S. J., & Mayr, E.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1991-03-08
- Volume
- 251
- Issue
- 4998
- Pages
- 1187-1188
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2029344803
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 94.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.251.4998.1187
- The paper
- O'Brien, S. J., & Mayr, E. (1991). Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.251.4998.1187
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.