Join our zoo community

online newsletter for small cats

Discussion in 'Websites about Zoos & Animal Conservation' started by Arizona Docent, 29 May 2015.

  1. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    Certainly sounds like it - given how different the African and Asian subspecies are to the European Wildcat I am not terribly surprised, truth be told!

    However, it *does* mean that if this taxonomic reclassification stands, the vast number of impure Scottish Wildcats knocking around are actually species-level hybrids given the fact that the domestic cats causing so much trouble are derived from African stock!

    Having seen the Palawan Leopard Cat and noted how different it looked to mainland P. bengalensis, I am not shocked. I *am* however somewhat surprised that the long-expected split of the Amur Leopard Cat has not only failed to occur, but that the Iriomote Cat appears to have been subsumed within the subspecies.
     
  2. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. I am looking at the link right now, and where did all the subspecies go?

    The link is just a list of Latin names, so I will look forward to receiving the full issue in the mail with explanations. But for those of us who are into cats, this revision is extreme. I myself am more of a lumper than a splitter, but I would not have expected this rate of consolidation of subspecies (unless it states somewhere outside this document that they are left out pending further review).

    Only two subspecies of tiger.

    Only two subspecies of lion (and Asiatic is NOT one of them - that is apparently subsumed with all African except the extinct Cape lion).

    Only two subspecies of puma (presumably North America vs Central/South America).

    Four subspecies of cheetah (the one cat that could IMO be consolidated is not).

    Domestic cat as a full species (a decision I personally disagree with, but of course I am not a scientist or even a pet cat owner for that matter).

    Two subspecies of European wildcat (now separate from African and Asian, though even European does not include Scottish as a distinct subspecies).

    Etc, etc
     
  3. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    I just checked my mailbox and there was Cat News, including the special issue devoted to revised cat taxonomy. They have color graphs for each subspecies (green for certain, yellow for plausible, red for invalid, gray for uncertain or invalid). It will take me a while to read through this, but for us cat fanatics it is all very interesting. I will try to post some key points as I get to them.

    Here is one teaser. The North China leopard (P.p. japonensis) is red and is no longer considered a valid subspecies. It is now joined with the Far East leopard (P.p. orientalis).
     
  4. savethelephant

    savethelephant Well-Known Member 5+ year member

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2015
    Posts:
    1,186
    Location:
    New York
    Do you think you would be able to take a picture of this chart and post it here?
     
    Arizona Docent likes this.
  5. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    Given the fact that these are two subspecies which I think *are* reasonably different from one another, but that the captive population of the latter contains genetic material from founders of the former taxon, it does make one wonder whether this decision was made in part so that they can justify combining the two captive populations and - by the by - declare that the most endangered cat taxon is actually much more secure than believed :p
     
  6. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    @savethelephant - Yes I will do a couple shots of interesting pages.

    @TeaLovingDave - Based on my very cursory glance, it appears the classifications were all made using objective criteria such as DNA, etc. I doubt political motivations about breeding swayed their decisions. (I will be able to better evaluate once I read the magazine).
     
    zooboy28 likes this.
  7. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    Given the aforementioned issue with the captive Amur population having some North Chinese blood, one hopes that the DNA evidence came from *wild* Amur stock :p otherwise we'd be having a re-run of the Kouprey debate!
     
  8. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Are you ready for another shocker? Only two subspecies of puma! One for North and Central America (P.c. couguar) and one for South America (P.c. concolor).
     
  9. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    Now that one I *did* expect to some degree :p and thankfully even though neither of the pure subspecies I have seen make the grade, they each get lumped into a different taxon so it doesn't actually make a difference!
     
  10. Ituri

    Ituri Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    2,933
    Location:
    USA
    How do the two subspecies of bobcat break down geographically?
     
  11. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    the revised taxonomy was based on what they termed a "traffic-light system" reviewed by 22 members of a panel.

    "A novel traffic-light system was developed to indicate certainty of each taxon based on morphological, molecular, biogeographical and other evidence. A concordance of good evidence in the three principal categories was required to strongly support the acceptance of a taxon."
     
  12. DavidBrown

    DavidBrown Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    4,867
    Location:
    California, USA
    The genetics have shown that all of the mountain lions in North America are one population without real geographic differences. I'm not up on South American genetics studies - presumably they are different from North and Central America? Does the article say what the differences are?
     
  13. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    @DavidBrown - Here is what they say regarding puma.
    "Traditionally this widespread species has been split into as many as 32 subspecies ...Culver et al (2000) carried out a phylogeographical study ...On the basis of this study, six phylogeographical groups were claimed and designated as subspecies ...A more recent study of mtDNA in pumas from throughout their range, although with lower sample sizes, supports only two main geographical groupings with North American populations having colonised since c. 8,000 years b.p."
     
  14. zooboy28

    zooboy28 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,439
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Was the more recent study Caragiulo et al. 2013? I'm not sure I'd be using that, given that while its based on a good amount of mtDNA, its still just mtDNA, but more concerning, the sampling design is not great, with samples limited to north-west USA (+ very close SW Canada), central America (quite good sampling through here) and then relatively localised in central South America, which seems likely to give 3 distinct populations as found. In fact, the study specifically notes that:
    Paper here (I think paywalled): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/19401736.2013.800486?scroll=top&needAccess=true
     
  15. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Yes. As my quote notes they do acknowledge the smaller sample size of this later study. Right after where my quote ends (which I apologize for leaving out) they have in parenthesis Caragiulo et al. 2014. They then go on to say "On this basis, we tentatively recognise two subspecies within Puma concolor." Note the word tentative.

    Not that it makes any difference or adds anything, but the Culver of Culver et al who identified six subspecies via a more thorough range of samples works about a mile from my home at University of Arizona and I have met her.
     
  16. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    so, not to call this whole taxonomy revision into question as to its legitimacy, but if you have 22 experts in the field all looking at a paper about mtDNA in a few puma populations, but the authors of which specifically note that they had limited samples and don't themselves believe the results are accurate overall due to their low sample sizes [i.e. in zooboy28's post] - then how do all those 22 experts come to the conclusion that that equals only two subspecies? What did they use for their tiger subspecies reduction? Tea leaves?
     
  17. zooboy28

    zooboy28 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    1 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    4,439
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Yeah, this is what I was getting at. If the current research is unclear, surely you would go for the more 'splitty' result, in case future research shows that, say, the Patagonian puma subspecies is super distinct and should be managed separately from the other South American pumas, and then you haven't gone and screwed up the management in the meantime. The exceptions to this would be when a population is immediately conservation dependent, and there is no time for studies to figure out exact taxonomy. In such cases conservation action is more important than inaction, and the risks of losing the distinctiveness between potential populations is far outweighed by the risk of losing all individuals. I don't think puma fall into this category yet.
     
  18. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    This reduction is one of the things which gives me the most pause, truth be told - one gets the impression that the researchers wanted to lump Panthera tigris as much as possible, given the fact that all mainland tigers have been lumped together with Amur merely deemed an "ecotype" of the overall subspecies.... this despite the fact that Malayan and Sumatran (deemed subspecifically distinct from one another) are more or less identical to the naked eye whilst Malayan and Amur (deemed subspecifically identical) differ in morphology to a massive scale!
     
    Arizona Docent likes this.
  19. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    it is probably as simple as them taking the two-species-of-tigers idea but not wanting to split the species, so instead they just broke them into two subspecies at the same point (archipelago versus mainland). It doesn't make any sense if that is what has happened, but otherwise I can't see any rationale.

    Needing a "concordance of good evidence" in the three main points of "morphological, molecular, [and] biogeographical" means it is very difficult to see how they could possibly consider Siberian and Malayan tigers as the same.
     
  20. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    Suspect you are correct.....

    For the purposes of amusement and comparison, some photographs:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These two are deemed to be the same subspecies by the new report, yet......

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    These two are recognised as sufficiently different to merit separation :p which, I must add, I do actually agree with - I seem to recall that although their appearance is very similar, there are significant skeletal differences between Sumatran (along with the extinct Bali and Javan) and the mainland subspecies.
     
    Arizona Docent likes this.