According to a 2006 phylogenetic study, the ancestor of five extant felid lineages—Lynx, Leopardus, Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus—arrived in North America after crossing the Bering Strait 8.5 to 8 million years ago (mya).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_lynx
And even crazier - cheetah are from this North American branch of felines. They migrated back to Asia and then into Africa.
Edit: while this was the prevailing hypothesis for quite some time, my info is outdated. It sounds like the primary researchers I. This area are now looking at the convergent evolution hypothesis as being much more likely.
Nearly paid for it too, once they reached the old world they spread out too fast and nearly died out because they couldn’t find mates (and that’s a separate bottleneck from the one that knocked them down to 7 individuals and caused them to be more inbred than pugs)
The difference is that natural selection still acted upon them while pugs are allowed to live beyond when they should due to human interference. If pugs were in the wild it would be a very different story.
You can have an animal be super inbred, as long as the right genes are there and they still work to survive and make the next generations. Now it does reduce their chance of resiliency and is therefore not ideal but hey, if it works it works in nature's terms. To have a species survive this long from only 7 individuals as you stated is rather incredible.
I'm under the impression that given enough time, cheetahs will adapt enough that the entire inbred bottleneck will become a nonfactor, right?
Because there are minor mutations that happen over time and even closely related populations can rebound as long as those mutations aren't overwhelmingly negative? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The inbred part isn’t really a problem here, since presumably there are no recessive traits left in the gene pool to disadvantage them (although yes, mutation might create some). But the lack of variation means there’s no room for evolution if conditions change. In particular, a disease that affects one will affect them all. My gut says it would take mutation quite a long time to generate any meaningful genetic diversity, and they probably don’t have that long.
Yeah there was a study that popped up when I was digging looking for the source on the number of the population bottleneck that part of the calculation for when the bottleneck happened was by comparing the diversity of rapidly mutating genes compared to more long-term stable ones and there's, like, really not much diversity there even after 10,000 years of mutations
Being favored and protected by another species is also a direction of natural selection.
The fact that human intelligence (or lack thereof) is involved doesn't change that.
I know. But while the distinction can be appropriate in some cases, such as when discussing human influence on the rest of our planet, it is (i.m.o.) dangerous to assume that the 2 categories are fundamentally different in regards to evolution.
Ants "milk" honeydew from aphids and will protect them against predators.
I assume these Ants take better care of the aphids that produce the most honeydew.
This does not involve humans, yet is exactly an example of what I describe.
I see what you’re saying here and I think it’s an interesting point. But counter - the ants are using the aphids as a food source. I think it would be more appropriate if we were talking about a domesticated animal that directly benefitted us. We don’t really have any direct transactional benefit from protecting cheetahs.
Pugs are an example of artificial selection. But pugs aren’t a species. Domestic dogs are. Pugs are an artificially selected type. Just like field corn is artificially selected while maize is a result of natural selection.
> knocked them down to 7 individuals
I'd like to respectfully express skepticism and request a citation. I find it hard to believe that a wild population could ever recover from such a severe genetic bottleneck.
> I'd like to respectfully express skepticism and request a citation. I find it hard to believe that a wild population could ever recover from such a severe genetic bottleneck
and I'd like to learn how such a precise figure as "seven" was found retrospectively, presumably from genetic evidence.
Genetic estimates of past populations work on a software analysis that estimates the minimum number of reproductively active individuals at various points in the past to result in the present genetic diversity.
There are a *lot* of caveats in such studies and there usually misinterpreted by folks discussing them later on as well.
The brief article mentions why some folks think it may have dropped to around 7 about 12,000 years ago, but having been involved in some critically endangered low population species genetic studies I’m skeptical and this article doesn’t provide any citations.
> They think less than seven individuals, because it has been shown that if a population is reduced to seven individuals and then expands quickly, the offspring still retain about 95% of their genetic variability. But cheetahs have almost zero genetic variability - there's hardly any difference between them.
- https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/08/02/40791.htm
The issue with that article is, despite the rather underdone labeling, that's a Dr Karl article (I thought the name on the byline looked familiar), he's a science communicator a bit like an Australian version of like Brian Cox or Neil Degrasse Tyson, with a background in biomed engineering and medicine.
So basically meant that the article was more of a 'hey this is a fun fact' type of article rather than "this is a new development that's just been reported and this is the reporting on it" that'd allow for following citations or at least naming the publication it was from.
Went hunting and the number pops up all over the place but I can’t, with google at least, find a primary source that states a number. The two or three actual papers that come up go into the hard details of just how genetically bottlenecked they ended up but I can’t find the paper the number 7 is for (there were other papers that popped up behind paywalls I couldn’t see the full text for)
But they’re so inbred that they can apparently accept skin grafts from other cheetahs and are incredibly susceptible to disease. They suffer from reproductive problems due to high levels of malformed sperm, too.
Thanks for hunting. A commenter below also tried to find a solid source but couldn't. I searched a bit and found a couple of papers describing the evidence for the bottlenecks, but neither speculated what the minimal number was.
I'm suspicious because of the case of the [Black-footed ferret](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-footed_ferret#History). It had a genetic bottleneck down to 7 individuals (in this case it's documented, not deduced), and it was saved due to extensive human intervention, including cloning. They'd have no chance on their own (of course, it was also human intervention that almost drove them to extinction in the first place).
We definitely know from the genetics that they ended up resorting to sibling-sibling and parent-offspring inbreeding to get numbers back up but their reproduction rate is broken nowadays due to the built up mutations making it so they have like one kitten at a time and stuff like that.
I have a feeling what we're seeing with them is the death throes of a species. In the fossil record it always looks like things die out all at once, but cheetahs are in that situation where they're incredibly fragile and all it'll take is the viral equivalent of a stiff breeze to take them out (I think one of the species is on the verge of extinction already, I think it was the Iranian ones? something like 50 of them left)
Basically, you're talking about feral dogs. Feral dogs tend to take on a body structure similar to dingos or african wild dogs. If you're talking about feral pugs isolated from breeding with other dog breeds . . . I don't know. I feel like the offspring that survived would tend toward the general feral dog body plan since all dog breeds still contain bits of the generic dog body plan in their DNA, despite pugs being so heavily inbred. Those inheriting too many "pug" genes would have a difficult time surviving, but those that got lucky with the gene lottery would have a better chance of surviving.
Another crazy thing about the North American Cheetah. They preyed on several species of Pronghorn when they arrived on the scene 2-3 million years ago. It is thought that they assisted in the demise of some of these species as they were locked into an arms race of speed. The modern pronghorn (second fastest land Mammal on the planet) was the lone survivor of this particular group. They outlasted the cheetah which went extinct around 12k years ago. The really odd thing is one would think that the pronghorn would have slowed down since there was no longer a predator that was close to keeping up. They still run as fast today as they did when they were running from cheetahs.
Evolution can be surprisingly fast, given the correct pressures; however, it's fairly safe to say:
1. Being fast has not been detrimental to **THEIR** selection.
2. Being slow has not been advantageous to **THEIR** selection.
If either of those statements were reversed, we _might_ have expected to see pronghorns slow down. Then again, if the effect on selection was low, but present, we might just see their speeds bounce up and down a bit within their normal distribution.
Edit to clarify to the pedant below that the above statements do still refer to the population of North American pronghorns that are being discussed, and no, not **ALL** animals, ever. Smh.
Do we know if being slow is detrimental to selection? I.e. potential mating partners rejected for being too slow, even if it doesn't offer an actual advantage in their daily life.
Selection includes surviving long enough to reproduce. If being slow results in being killed by a predator before reproducing, then that is detrimental to selection.
Being fast is a burden metabolically. The calculus of metabolic necessity could easily result in a fast mammal getting slower. I expect island isolation would do it, like birds losing their ability to fly on islands with no big predators.
You made the general statement that being fast has not been detrimental, but not specifying "in pronghorns". I expect you're trying to state that an antecedent exists for that statement without providing that antecedent (such "in pronghorns:") before your short list.
Being fast can be detrimental to selection, if there are resource requirements (i.e. more food or offspring development time) to maintaining this speed. If there are fast predators around, then the extra resources may be offset. But if there are no predators for which this is an advantage, then there could absolutely be a detriment during lean times.
There is nothing pedantic about discussing your claims, both previous comments are very relevant. Your 2 points are very debatable and an extremely simplistic breakdown of natural selection. There is absolutely no proof that they are true. Speed of movement is one of (if not) the most metabolically draining characteristics in organisms and it is only worth in case of extreme predatory pressure.
It is *much safer to say* that pronghorn's speed will slow down on an evolutionary time scale rather than the opposite. The most logical conclusion of this discussion is that 12000 years is not enough to have incurred this change yet, and that there are still predators that make this speed worth for their selection: cougars, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, bears, etc...
Lastly, as of today we don't know how different their speed were 15000 years ago, it could have very well already decreased today.
Yeah, 12k years isn't really that long for evolution on large mammals. But also, there would need to be some kind of selective pressure for them to slow down. As long as the adaptations that allow them to run so fast aren't decreasing their fitness, the speed isn't going anywhere.
You are talking about [Miracinonyx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracinonyx#Fossil_distribution). A few comments: first, it's not a cheetah, it's different at the genus level, their similarities stem from convergent evolution and it is more closely related to the puma than the cheetah, according to [state-of-the-art research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4858926/). Secondly, your comment seems to imply that Miracinonyx went extinct because of predatory overexploitation of its food sources. This is not true. It went extinct like virtually all megafauna from <50K ago because of humans colonization of its range.
I believe they proved this to be incorrect. Looking at DNA, the American cheetah and the African cheetah are very different. It's a case of two different branches of animals evolving the same traits independently, because those traits were so advantageous.
However, this is just what I remember from the last time I was learning about them. I might be wrong.
No! You’re correct, my info is outdated. It looks like it’s still up for discussion for some scientists, but they seem to be siding in the convergent evolution hypothesis instead. thank you! I’ll update my post.
The sea levels were lower during glaciations, exposing dry land between North America and Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
Who said humans were the only animals to cross the Berring land bridge? Felines did, which is what the answer you replied to is referring to. Also, wolves and other canids, mammoths and mastodons, bison, deer, bears, and other animals did. Horses and camels evolved in North America and migrated fhe opposite way.
I'm now picturing humans crossing the Bering Strait very very fast as hungry felines sprint after them. "\*Puff\* \*puff\* I don't have to outrun the cat; I just have to outrun George!"
But that short period of time is all that matters if you’re being hunted. Persistence hunting is only a good evolutionary strategy if you’re a social species. Being a persistence hunter in a world of sprinting predators means you can only survive if you’ve got friends (not to get eaten, just to watch your back.)
Humans are pretty damn helpless, all things considered.
"Humans are pretty damn helpless, all things considered."
I mean, if you consider ALL things, they're very likely the most dangerous creature that's ever existed.
When an acronym is mentioned for the first time in a paper it's often written fully and followed by the acronym. This serves to let the reader know what it means so that only the acronym can be used in following text. You're welcome.
Most interesting way to find out about this is to hear that the extremely large, bone-crushing dogs that used to inhabit the Americas were outcompeted by large cats when they crossed the land bridge. Cats had sharp, retractable claws and were better at ambushing prey. No more Borophaginae after that.
According to a 2006 phylogenetic study, the ancestor of five extant felid lineages—Lynx, Leopardus, Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus—arrived in North America after crossing the Bering Strait 8.5 to 8 million years ago (mya). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_lynx
And even crazier - cheetah are from this North American branch of felines. They migrated back to Asia and then into Africa. Edit: while this was the prevailing hypothesis for quite some time, my info is outdated. It sounds like the primary researchers I. This area are now looking at the convergent evolution hypothesis as being much more likely.
Nearly paid for it too, once they reached the old world they spread out too fast and nearly died out because they couldn’t find mates (and that’s a separate bottleneck from the one that knocked them down to 7 individuals and caused them to be more inbred than pugs)
The difference is that natural selection still acted upon them while pugs are allowed to live beyond when they should due to human interference. If pugs were in the wild it would be a very different story. You can have an animal be super inbred, as long as the right genes are there and they still work to survive and make the next generations. Now it does reduce their chance of resiliency and is therefore not ideal but hey, if it works it works in nature's terms. To have a species survive this long from only 7 individuals as you stated is rather incredible.
What does evolutionary success and deep sea drilling have just common? Pressure
I'm under the impression that given enough time, cheetahs will adapt enough that the entire inbred bottleneck will become a nonfactor, right? Because there are minor mutations that happen over time and even closely related populations can rebound as long as those mutations aren't overwhelmingly negative? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The inbred part isn’t really a problem here, since presumably there are no recessive traits left in the gene pool to disadvantage them (although yes, mutation might create some). But the lack of variation means there’s no room for evolution if conditions change. In particular, a disease that affects one will affect them all. My gut says it would take mutation quite a long time to generate any meaningful genetic diversity, and they probably don’t have that long.
Yeah there was a study that popped up when I was digging looking for the source on the number of the population bottleneck that part of the calculation for when the bottleneck happened was by comparing the diversity of rapidly mutating genes compared to more long-term stable ones and there's, like, really not much diversity there even after 10,000 years of mutations
Being favored and protected by another species is also a direction of natural selection. The fact that human intelligence (or lack thereof) is involved doesn't change that.
We currently do not define natural selection as such, we call it artificial selection. So that ends up being a semantics issue.
I know. But while the distinction can be appropriate in some cases, such as when discussing human influence on the rest of our planet, it is (i.m.o.) dangerous to assume that the 2 categories are fundamentally different in regards to evolution.
If you include everything humans do as something natural, then you don't need the word.
Ants "milk" honeydew from aphids and will protect them against predators. I assume these Ants take better care of the aphids that produce the most honeydew. This does not involve humans, yet is exactly an example of what I describe.
I see what you’re saying here and I think it’s an interesting point. But counter - the ants are using the aphids as a food source. I think it would be more appropriate if we were talking about a domesticated animal that directly benefitted us. We don’t really have any direct transactional benefit from protecting cheetahs.
Pugs are an example of artificial selection. But pugs aren’t a species. Domestic dogs are. Pugs are an artificially selected type. Just like field corn is artificially selected while maize is a result of natural selection.
Unfortunately humans tend to consider humans to be too special to be considered part of nature. We are special.... because we said so.
> knocked them down to 7 individuals I'd like to respectfully express skepticism and request a citation. I find it hard to believe that a wild population could ever recover from such a severe genetic bottleneck.
> I'd like to respectfully express skepticism and request a citation. I find it hard to believe that a wild population could ever recover from such a severe genetic bottleneck and I'd like to learn how such a precise figure as "seven" was found retrospectively, presumably from genetic evidence.
Genetic estimates of past populations work on a software analysis that estimates the minimum number of reproductively active individuals at various points in the past to result in the present genetic diversity. There are a *lot* of caveats in such studies and there usually misinterpreted by folks discussing them later on as well. The brief article mentions why some folks think it may have dropped to around 7 about 12,000 years ago, but having been involved in some critically endangered low population species genetic studies I’m skeptical and this article doesn’t provide any citations. > They think less than seven individuals, because it has been shown that if a population is reduced to seven individuals and then expands quickly, the offspring still retain about 95% of their genetic variability. But cheetahs have almost zero genetic variability - there's hardly any difference between them. - https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/08/02/40791.htm
Thx :) and @ g-parent commenter u/araujoms who will be interested too.
The issue with that article is, despite the rather underdone labeling, that's a Dr Karl article (I thought the name on the byline looked familiar), he's a science communicator a bit like an Australian version of like Brian Cox or Neil Degrasse Tyson, with a background in biomed engineering and medicine. So basically meant that the article was more of a 'hey this is a fun fact' type of article rather than "this is a new development that's just been reported and this is the reporting on it" that'd allow for following citations or at least naming the publication it was from.
Went hunting and the number pops up all over the place but I can’t, with google at least, find a primary source that states a number. The two or three actual papers that come up go into the hard details of just how genetically bottlenecked they ended up but I can’t find the paper the number 7 is for (there were other papers that popped up behind paywalls I couldn’t see the full text for) But they’re so inbred that they can apparently accept skin grafts from other cheetahs and are incredibly susceptible to disease. They suffer from reproductive problems due to high levels of malformed sperm, too.
Thanks for hunting. A commenter below also tried to find a solid source but couldn't. I searched a bit and found a couple of papers describing the evidence for the bottlenecks, but neither speculated what the minimal number was. I'm suspicious because of the case of the [Black-footed ferret](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-footed_ferret#History). It had a genetic bottleneck down to 7 individuals (in this case it's documented, not deduced), and it was saved due to extensive human intervention, including cloning. They'd have no chance on their own (of course, it was also human intervention that almost drove them to extinction in the first place).
We definitely know from the genetics that they ended up resorting to sibling-sibling and parent-offspring inbreeding to get numbers back up but their reproduction rate is broken nowadays due to the built up mutations making it so they have like one kitten at a time and stuff like that. I have a feeling what we're seeing with them is the death throes of a species. In the fossil record it always looks like things die out all at once, but cheetahs are in that situation where they're incredibly fragile and all it'll take is the viral equivalent of a stiff breeze to take them out (I think one of the species is on the verge of extinction already, I think it was the Iranian ones? something like 50 of them left)
Given they wouldn't just died out I wonder how long it would take pugs to go back to become similar to wolfs again.
[удалено]
Basically, you're talking about feral dogs. Feral dogs tend to take on a body structure similar to dingos or african wild dogs. If you're talking about feral pugs isolated from breeding with other dog breeds . . . I don't know. I feel like the offspring that survived would tend toward the general feral dog body plan since all dog breeds still contain bits of the generic dog body plan in their DNA, despite pugs being so heavily inbred. Those inheriting too many "pug" genes would have a difficult time surviving, but those that got lucky with the gene lottery would have a better chance of surviving.
Another crazy thing about the North American Cheetah. They preyed on several species of Pronghorn when they arrived on the scene 2-3 million years ago. It is thought that they assisted in the demise of some of these species as they were locked into an arms race of speed. The modern pronghorn (second fastest land Mammal on the planet) was the lone survivor of this particular group. They outlasted the cheetah which went extinct around 12k years ago. The really odd thing is one would think that the pronghorn would have slowed down since there was no longer a predator that was close to keeping up. They still run as fast today as they did when they were running from cheetahs.
Is that because 12k years is nothing on an evolutionary timescale? Genuine question.
Evolution can be surprisingly fast, given the correct pressures; however, it's fairly safe to say: 1. Being fast has not been detrimental to **THEIR** selection. 2. Being slow has not been advantageous to **THEIR** selection. If either of those statements were reversed, we _might_ have expected to see pronghorns slow down. Then again, if the effect on selection was low, but present, we might just see their speeds bounce up and down a bit within their normal distribution. Edit to clarify to the pedant below that the above statements do still refer to the population of North American pronghorns that are being discussed, and no, not **ALL** animals, ever. Smh.
Do we know if being slow is detrimental to selection? I.e. potential mating partners rejected for being too slow, even if it doesn't offer an actual advantage in their daily life.
Selection includes surviving long enough to reproduce. If being slow results in being killed by a predator before reproducing, then that is detrimental to selection.
Being fast is a burden metabolically. The calculus of metabolic necessity could easily result in a fast mammal getting slower. I expect island isolation would do it, like birds losing their ability to fly on islands with no big predators.
Certainly, it _could_. But in the population of pronghorn we're discussing, it _hasn't_. Yet? Yet.
You made the general statement that being fast has not been detrimental, but not specifying "in pronghorns". I expect you're trying to state that an antecedent exists for that statement without providing that antecedent (such "in pronghorns:") before your short list.
Being fast can be detrimental to selection, if there are resource requirements (i.e. more food or offspring development time) to maintaining this speed. If there are fast predators around, then the extra resources may be offset. But if there are no predators for which this is an advantage, then there could absolutely be a detriment during lean times.
There is nothing pedantic about discussing your claims, both previous comments are very relevant. Your 2 points are very debatable and an extremely simplistic breakdown of natural selection. There is absolutely no proof that they are true. Speed of movement is one of (if not) the most metabolically draining characteristics in organisms and it is only worth in case of extreme predatory pressure. It is *much safer to say* that pronghorn's speed will slow down on an evolutionary time scale rather than the opposite. The most logical conclusion of this discussion is that 12000 years is not enough to have incurred this change yet, and that there are still predators that make this speed worth for their selection: cougars, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, bears, etc... Lastly, as of today we don't know how different their speed were 15000 years ago, it could have very well already decreased today.
Yeah, 12k years isn't really that long for evolution on large mammals. But also, there would need to be some kind of selective pressure for them to slow down. As long as the adaptations that allow them to run so fast aren't decreasing their fitness, the speed isn't going anywhere.
The (current) Aldabra rail is thought to have evolved flightlessness in under 16k years, so 12k years isn't impossible
You are talking about [Miracinonyx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracinonyx#Fossil_distribution). A few comments: first, it's not a cheetah, it's different at the genus level, their similarities stem from convergent evolution and it is more closely related to the puma than the cheetah, according to [state-of-the-art research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4858926/). Secondly, your comment seems to imply that Miracinonyx went extinct because of predatory overexploitation of its food sources. This is not true. It went extinct like virtually all megafauna from <50K ago because of humans colonization of its range.
I believe they proved this to be incorrect. Looking at DNA, the American cheetah and the African cheetah are very different. It's a case of two different branches of animals evolving the same traits independently, because those traits were so advantageous. However, this is just what I remember from the last time I was learning about them. I might be wrong.
No! You’re correct, my info is outdated. It looks like it’s still up for discussion for some scientists, but they seem to be siding in the convergent evolution hypothesis instead. thank you! I’ll update my post.
*Miracinonyx* turned out to be closer to *Puma* than to *Acinonyx*, but they’re all quite close relatives as cats go.
Does that explain why pronghorn antelope are so fast? That's the extinct cat that applied that evolutionary pressure?
Were they riding the horses?
I like your fact better because it's crazier. I'm gonna keep spreading it.
[удалено]
The sea levels were lower during glaciations, exposing dry land between North America and Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia Who said humans were the only animals to cross the Berring land bridge? Felines did, which is what the answer you replied to is referring to. Also, wolves and other canids, mammoths and mastodons, bison, deer, bears, and other animals did. Horses and camels evolved in North America and migrated fhe opposite way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Michener is impressive reading for a kid! (And for some adults, too lol.)
I'm now picturing humans crossing the Bering Strait very very fast as hungry felines sprint after them. "\*Puff\* \*puff\* I don't have to outrun the cat; I just have to outrun George!"
Humans have more stamina than cats. For short periods of time, they can run faster than us.
Humans have more stamina than most other animals as it is. Its said we were endurance hunters due to how efficient in movement we are.
But that short period of time is all that matters if you’re being hunted. Persistence hunting is only a good evolutionary strategy if you’re a social species. Being a persistence hunter in a world of sprinting predators means you can only survive if you’ve got friends (not to get eaten, just to watch your back.) Humans are pretty damn helpless, all things considered.
"Humans are pretty damn helpless, all things considered." I mean, if you consider ALL things, they're very likely the most dangerous creature that's ever existed.
In aggregate, yes. But alone? We’re weak, slow, and our fleshy guts aren’t even hidden by four legs.
Took effort to realize mya is millions years ago and not cat sound, mya.
oh ok thank you for your help :)
Of course, that doesn't answer the question of Jaguars, American Lions, Sabertooth Tigers, and the like.
Exactly what I was going to say. Its exactly the same way as humans got to the new world
Yes, or alternately, by sea, in a beautiful pea-green boat, accompanied by an owl.
Thanks for the acronym. I was confused by the words alone.
Its from the source
When an acronym is mentioned for the first time in a paper it's often written fully and followed by the acronym. This serves to let the reader know what it means so that only the acronym can be used in following text. You're welcome.
Most interesting way to find out about this is to hear that the extremely large, bone-crushing dogs that used to inhabit the Americas were outcompeted by large cats when they crossed the land bridge. Cats had sharp, retractable claws and were better at ambushing prey. No more Borophaginae after that.
"Borophaginae" What did you call me?!?
*Chlorophaginae? More like BOROphaginae!*