ABSTRACT
The use of alloenzymes and mitochondrial DNA analysis has thrown doubt on the identity of some species named in conservation legislation. Eastern timber wolves (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1785) and the red wolf (C. rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851) may carry the mitochondrial DNA of coyotes (C. latrans Say, 1823) (Lehman et al. 1991; Wayne and Jenks 1991), whereas Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi Bangs, 1896) carry genes of pumas from central America because of a release of hybrids decades ago. These cases have generated concern since the US Solicitor’s office of the Department of the Interior ruled that hybrids are not protected by the Endangered Species Act (O’Brien and Mayr 1991; Gittleman and Pimm 1991; Rennie 1991). Although I agree with O’Brien and Mayr (1991) that the hybrid policy should be carefully applied on a case-by-case basis, and that hybridization need not be a tragedy for conservation, the unresolved question is whether the courts, rather than other specialists, will concur with their view. Moreover, to succeed in court, there needs to be agreement on the criteria to use when applying the ‘hybrid policy’. As I discuss below, one such criterion should be the success of hybrids as tested in their natural habitat.
