San Francisco's

[Cazador]

They're just considered "extinct in the wild" if they only exist in captivity.

[abcat1993]

Not to get off topic but how many species of animals are extinct in the wild?

[Stefan-A]

Originally Posted by Thamnophis

Maybe, if there are only less than 10 individuals of a certain (sub-)species you better let nature do what it does. The free niche will be taken by another species or subspecies.
Sinde there are living creatures on this globe there has been extinction of species.

In certain cases there isn't even a niche to be taken, which is why the species is becoming extinct in the first place. But I don't know if it's right to say that you are better off in every case. Sooner or later the niche (if there is one) will be taken, but how the temporary vacuum effects us, is something that should be taken into consideration. If that species of bird had been the only species specializing in a certain disease-carrying insect, we'd be better off keeping it alive. Another species will emerge sooner or later, but it takes time.

[Cazador]

Here's an interesting thought... if the San Francisco garters diverged from other sympatric T. sirtalis in the San Francisco area to fill the niche available (i.e. specializing on toxic CA red-legged frogs), then the evolutionary arms race may have outpaced their ability to adapt (evolve) due to the bottleneck effect (limited genetic variation as a result of a relatively limited population size). Habitat degredation and destruction have no doubt been contributing factors, but I like the idea that the evolutionary arms race may have outpaced their ability to evolve, as Cascabel suggested. It's part of a very interesting hypothesis.

[LukeBonham]

Hey guys interesting replies. I am still wondering though if there is anyone else in Canada working with Tetrataenia? Let me know.
Thanks,
Luke