Some news for Clouded Leopard fans, it appears they have now found a new species which lives on the Island of Borneo and is now called Neofelis diardi. Dna tests in the US have found 40 gentic differentces, it also appears to have smaller cloud markings with more spots and a double stripe down the back, its fur is darker overall as well. Interesting news .
Yes, for some reason this made headlines here in UK too and was aired on TV and radio news bulletins throughout yesterday... The pictures on TV weren't too exciting-it looks like any other clouded leopard but it has genuine differences in patterning/ ground colouration. Apparently the island and mainland races diverged much earlier than was thought, causing 'speciation' And there was me thinking they had discovered some entirely new species of cat....
We used to have a male Bornean clouded leopard in Singapore (he's been sent to Indonesia) and he looked absolutely different from the other clouded leopards we had that were from Indochina. He had a very tan coat (dark brown/gray), a broader head and a more slender tail. It sure took scientists long to figure out they were a seperate species altogether.
it is interesting news,and scary too. that we continue to log these forests where such basic new discoveries are being made. also, this scientific breakthrough, what does it do to the status of the mainalnd clouded leopard??? i mean , if there former population was taken to include these bornean and sumatran cats and you now have to subtract the number of these cats from the population total does that mean the clouded leopards status declines form endangered to critically endangered?
thats exactly what i first thought when i first saw the images. but whilst coat pattern can be highly variable for amongst different populations and subspecies its the head on the bornean specimen depicted in the media pictures that best illustrates the true differences here - it shows a cat with a very different shaped head than that of typical clouded leopards.. but now what are we going to call these cats that are not really even leopards at all? mainland clouded leopard and the sundanese clouded leopard maybe?
so now does that mean zoos worldwide i guess have to look at there animals and reclassify them if any came from that region - do you agree?
this was a case of another species popping up after genetic analysis - and i'm sure if they genetically anylise every mammal on earth you would end up having to rewrite all the books on the subject. a few years ago it was suggested that sumatran tigers where in fact their own species, then malaysian tigers were offered as a new subspecies. the jury is still out on wether sumatran and bornean orangs are seperate species or just subspecies - even though the two can clearly interbreed (something that usually defines a species). africa's elephants were split into two species based on genetics - even though their is evidence the two interbreed in some areas also. polar bears can create fertile offspring with brown bears but look radically different. as can false killer whales and bottlenose dolphins. now these two groups of clouded leopards illustrated in the media look radically different in the head shape to me - but so too do siberian and sumatran tigers....and so many other species too. are we overdoing it? i bet that the island clouded leopards can interbreed with the mainland variety..
Reminds me of the situation with the Malayan tiger subspecies that was separated from the Indochinese subspecies. I guess some zoos had already interbred the malayans with the indochinese, so pure malayans are rare in zoos now. Likewise, neofelis diardi is very rare in captivity.
Yep, the 'new' Clouded Leopard species seems to have a bigger head and smaller tail in proportion to its body than its mainland counterpart. Presumably there are a few(?) in captivity somewhere for the DNA tests to have been done, also the specimen shown on the news media looked as if it was a captive. I too would wager that it can breed with the mainland one and produce fertile young. So what is the definition of a 'true' species (as against subspecies) nowadays?
i do bio, and they stress to us skool kids, an organims can produce viable offspring with its own kind, but not with other species, i am always quick to ask qns of course, and am told not to complicate things for everyone, and i agree the hsc is getting to everyone, and needs to be simple as possible
Species or subspecies: that 's the question Folks, Zoo Boy is right. Interbreeding goes within species (so subspecies). When genetically animals are identified as clear species, they differ so much genetically from another that so much gene flow has occurred no natural interbreeding can take place. As for those interested: the elephants on Borneo are a pygmee variant of the mainland races. Recent genetic research has tended to put them in as a clear species. So, the Neofelis diardi stands not on its own. Clearly, the time lapse and geographical separation for 10,000 years or more has considerably changed the genetics of the island forms. Often, when geographical separation occurs due to island formation speciation tends to go into high gear. Another nice example of this has been the island of Madagascar with its 35-40 or so different species of lemurs!
which is exactly my point jelle, whilst we all understand the accepted method of scientific classification developed by linnaeus, with the current trend at reclassifying species based on genetics, what becomes clear is that life is much more of a darwinian not black-and-white kind of affair. like the textbooks, you say two different species can't interbreed (at least not creating reproductively viable offspring). but nature is full of examples of two different species that not only interbreed, but create fertile young, thus ensuring at least a limited flow of genetics between the two groups. eg.. the two "species" of african elephants interbreed in parts of the northern congo and spotted and common dolphins often interbreed also. and as genetics analysis continues to further argue for new subspecies and elevating former subspecies to species status, the issue becomes even more mixed up. so whilst we agree that what you and zooboy are saying is the accepted belief of what defines a species, we also believe its not exactly correct and i for one am of the train of thought that science should be somewhat cautious about not getting too carried away with reclassifying everything based on genetics, because in illustrating distinct unseen differences in otherwise similar animal populations it also demonstrates its hard to draw a line of distinction with evolution, since its constantly changing all the time. i for one would make a bet that clouded leopards on borneo can interbreed witrh mainland ones. oh, and i believe the bornean elephants where reclassified as a seperate subspecies (not species). prior to that they were belived to actually be a feral population of mainland elephants not native to the island.
Thanx for your comments patrick. Whilst I agree genetics alone should not let us jump on the bandwagon of defining new species instantly, it is accepted belief that where individuals of a given species differ more than 1% on their genetic make-up one should treat them as separate species. I am more of the train of thought that we should be cautious not to interbreed ecologically distinct units. As an example take the Asian wild asses. Both kulan and onager are recognised as different subspecies taxonomically, whilst on the genetics level they are very similar in genetic make-up. Some geneticists have therefore argued for them to be treated as one subspecies. However, the Kaukasus and northern Iranian gradiant mountains have separated both the kulan and onager into distinct geographical ecological units. What drama can occur is when one mixes both critically endangered subspecies. This has happened in Israel where both subspecies have been allowed to mix and interbreed. The resulting offspring can no longer be distinguished at subspecies level. To make the drama complete these individuals are now released into the wild in Israel on a regular basis. To put it into perspective: the onager has only 300-400 individuals and the kulan no more than a 1,000. And in the race to face off extinction every individual animal counts. Coming back to the Borneon species debate, both the pygmy elephant of north-eastern Borneo and the clouded leopard of this large island exhibit numerous morphological traits that would suggest we are talking of very different (sub-)species. Genetically, some like the elephant may still interbreed (as has happened with 2 female elephants at Hannover Zoo) with the mainland race, but morphologically speaking one should thread carefully and treat them as distinct races at the very least. Looking forward to furthering the debate, lol.
all a bit grey.. i definately believe in preserving distinct populations (and potential subspecies) wherever possible, and i generally beleive its okay to be a little more liberal when classifying subspecies that it is when defining a seperate species. when it comes to zoos, there are many circumstances where i agree that zoos made a decent decision to manage a population of hybridised decent rather than attempt to juggle a number of smaller genetically distinct populations or capture more animals from the wild to focus on one. however, what worries me is that in other situations, zoos might not do the right thing and preserve a distinct race when they have a clear opportunity. elephants are a good example. i'll bet the vast majority of breeding-age elephants in captivity outside asia are of the mainland race. their decendents were most likely from the wilds of burma, india, thailand or malaysia etc.. however, elephants are relatively difficult to breed in captivity and so of the zoos that do try (which is admittedly very few in comparison) any opportunity seems to be taken up. so you have zoo like hannover as you mentioned deliberately creating hybrid calves. no doubt the oregon zoo will breed their bornean elephant when they get the chance also. unfortunately zoos seem to be intent on managing elephants at the species level, ignoring the fact that most of their animals can be traced to a pure mainland ancestory. this means these hybrids will no douubt eventually find themselves polluting the main zoo breeding pool with their hybridised genes and you'll end up with a hybrid elephant population in zoos. i have little doubt that eventually (be it 20-50 years away), elephant will become so rare in the wild that zoo-bred animals will be mated with wild animals in an attempt to increase genetic diversity. and thus, there is the begining of the end for our elephant subspecies. like everything else, even our animals will become a monoculture. which, in the case of elephants, probably wouldn't make much difference to the ecology of the area, is nonetheless a pretty boring concept in my mind. another interesting concept is the problem of species, that rather than having geographical boundaries separating subspecies like a river or mountain range, have one continuous didtribution over a large range. we talked of the seabirds (can't remember the species) in scotland that spread their range in one direction around the globe and by the time they reached scotland again had become a seperate species. however following their range, to this day you can still trace a flow of genes from one "species" to the other as the populations still interbreed with their neighbours to this day. maybe a more practical (in zoo terms) example is plains zebras. historically at teh soutehr end of africa you had a distinctly stripeless and brown coloured zebra at the norther end you had a two-toned heavily striped race. in the middle are intermediate forms, like the most common subspecies we keep in our australian zoos. but if hypothetically you crossbred the far northern race with the now extinct quagga (the far southern one) would the ruslting progeny be legitimately considered a pure bred chapman's zebra? (the intermediate race).... none of it seems (pardon the pun) that black and white to me....
If you crossed a Grants Zebra with an (extinct) Quagga, presumably the resulting stripe pattern of the progeny would be the only characteristic by which to define it. It would only be a 'Chapman's zebra' if it had the correct stripes and shadow stripes and even then I'd say it was a 'lookalike' Chapman's zebra. That's too how I would describe the 'Quaggas' in the Quagga project, except so far, despite their claims, this hasn't produced any animals even close to the true markings of a Quagga. The 'species versus subspecies' discussions will probably continue forever.
grantsmb, I am told that the quagga in some circles is considered merely a variant within the main zebra group. Whereas in the past it was considered a full species, these days when it has become ecologically extinct, voices are going up it may be a mutant gene ..........!!!
Tell me more.... Please elaborate if you can. The current Quagga project is based on the fact that the DNA proved it to be a race of Plains Zebra- no more, no less. I for one had always believed that it was- the shape of body and head in the London Zoo photos indicated this quite clearly (at least to me). There is certainly a great deal of variation in the markings of the 23 or so museum speciments left around the World. Some have brown bodies with no evident stripes, others have broken patterns of striping on the mid back and saddle area. Could it mean Quaggas occurred as a mutant found among other Plains Zebras in South Africa, rather than as a true race apart? All very confusing but I still hope that Rau's death won't stop further progress with the project. Look particularly at the neck and head stripes of most of the museum Quaggas, or the London Quagga photos- the narrow white 'stripes' are more like the markings on a Bongo Antelope than the broad black and white bands on other Plains zebras. How did this come about I wonder? And the body colour- quite a dark chestnut brown. To my mind it wasn't just a 'reduction of stripes' on the body- they had a totally different pattern and markings to other Plains zebras. And the 'Project' zebras are nowhere near approaching this appearance yet.
Chromosomal analysis has got a lot to answer for; as far as it's concerned, the Night Monkey or Douroucouli of Sth. America is actually 10 separate species (even though visually they all look identical.) While we should give credence to this "splitting" of species for scholarly correctness, for practical zoo and conservation breeding purposes, we should go with the old definition of a species (If two animals can breed together and have viable, fertile offspring then they are a species.) With the massive number of species which need assistance by captive breeding, the world's zoos should not be nit-picking and mucking around using up resources breeding separate races (here comes the bombshell) and that includes the Sumatran Tiger! (HERESY! CRUCIFY HIM!)
quite simply ara - they are not "nit picking". zoos usually breed genetically pure animals unless their is not enough of a founderbase to support such initiatives. in those cases, should the species be rare in captivity - the animals are often hybridised with others of their species, regardless of race, to form a breeding program. a good example of such is clouded leopards. who are of mixed ancestry in zoos. subspecies are preserved - if possible. thus it seems that your suggesting we destroy successful and important breeding programs like that for the sumatran tiger just for the hell of it.
One of the more common mixings that I see is the combining of orangutans from both borneo and sumatra. The offspring in many zoos are a mixture, therefore diluting the species of ape.
