[jfb]

It's illustrative to compare the number of parasitic species eliminated to that of non-parasitic species. It's a whole lot easier to knock the crap out of a passenger pigeon than A. aegypti, because the pigeon hasn't been under the selective pressure that the mosquito has.

[jws]

I think the passenger pigeon just got surprised by a new threat to which it couldn't adapt fast enough. It happens.

Their breeding strategy required massive colonies to fill the local predators' bellies and still have survivors. They didn't really count on a predator that would take entire colonies. Nets, alcohol soaked grain, fire arms, explosives, coupled with a huge national demand coupled with a vast transportation network were nothing like foxes, snakes, and birds of prey.

Musk oxen have the same problem. "Back into a mass protecting the young with your heads facing outward" doesn't work well against rifles. They don't have much of a plan B. Being dark on a barren, white landscape much of the year also sucks.

Many of the pelagic fish also fall into this category. They aren't built for a predator that will scoop up an entire 4000kg school of fish in one swipe.

[_delirium]

I'm not able to find any good information on it, but wouldn't there have been some host-specific parasites that went extinct along with their host? It's possible they're even uncatalogued ones, if (as seems likely) parasites that target species other than humans or commercially valuable livestock aren't as well documented as those that do target us and our animals.

From that perspective, it's not very surprising that human-targeted parasites haven't been going extinct without substantial purposeful effort, because their host has been very successful at increasing and spreading its population. If you think of the human population as the relevant "environment" for those species, then the environment is in very good shape...

[jfb]

Oh absolutely. The idea that there's a comprehensive catalog of species extinct and extant is a joke.

And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species. No wonder that vectors that spread human disease are also so successful -- so much meat to prey upon.

[chubbard]

"And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species." Oh I don't know cock roaches thrive really well in every zone too. And they carry countless diseases too, along with their redundant systems and all. Or how about rats? Also littered with pests themselves there isn't a place on this earth that hasn't been touched by rats.

[jfb]

Roaches and rats would never have spread as far as they have without humans carrying them along.

[FreeFull]

How do cockroaches and rats cope with Antarctica?

[Dove]

We don't cope with Antarctica all that well. Otherwise there would be a permanent population down there.

[jfb]

They don't. The caloric expenditure required to survive in a desert like that is only available to humanity.

[Karunamon]

And bears.. and penguins.. and lemmings..

[chc]

You appear to have the Arctic and Antarctic confused. They're opposite ends of the world. There aren't any bears or lemmings in Antarctica at all. And there are penguins in the region, but they're amphibious rather than really being stuck on Antarctica.

[jfb]

Well, you're ⅓ there, considering that there are no terrestrial mammals in Antarctica. But I was talking about weed species, not those particularly evolved for a given niche.