online newsletter for small cats

Here are their puma charts, just for fun!

Puma Subspecies by Arizona Docent posted 3 May 2017 at 8:51 PM

Puma Distribution by Arizona Docent posted 3 May 2017 at 8:51 PM

 

Let's continue with the new IUCN taxonomy and talk about leopard cats. Traditionally there was one species, Prionailurus bengalensis, and a separate species (not considered a leopard cat) called the Iriomote cat Prionailurus iriomotensis. A few years ago the latter was reclassified as a subspecies of leopard cat (P.b. iriometensis). The new suggested classification lists two distinct species of leopard cat, but Iriomote cat is not one of them. Even more surprising (at least to me) is the suggestion that the Iriomote cat was "probably introduced by humans." The two new species are separated into mainland and Sunda islands, just like the two new subspecies of tiger.

We have Prionailurus bengalensis for the mainland form, with two subspecies. In the northeast we have P.b. euptilurus and in a huge swath of the south (from east to west) we have P.b. bengalensis. The Iriomote cat's range is physically closer to the bengalensis race but is classified as the euptilurus race (with a note that more research is required).

We have Prionailurus javanensis as a new species for the Sunda islands form, with two subspecies. On the island of Java we have P.j. javanensis. On the islands of Sumatra, Borneo, Palawan, Negros, Cebu, Panay we have P.j. sumatranus. Discussion states that of the Philippine Islands (the last four on my list), only Palawan are likely native with the other three likely introduced by humans.

 

Here are the relevant leopard cat charts:

leopard cat taxonomy by Arizona Docent posted 7 May 2017 at 3:05 PM

leopard cat taxonomy by Arizona Docent posted 7 May 2017 at 3:05 PM

 

Good eyes TLD. Here is what the body of the text says.
"It is possible that leopard cats from the Philippines are the result of human introductions, although it is more likely that those from Palawan are indigenous, having colonised from Borneo during glaciations when sea levels were lower."

 

There is also a conflict between the taxonomy chart I posted and the range map (which I did not post). In the chart, iriometensis is listed in yellow as a possible subspecies, but in the range map it is not listed and Iriomote and Ryukyu islands are color coded the same as euptilurus.

 

Here is what the body of the text says:

"However, recent molecular studies have clearly demonstrated that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat, and its skull morphology confirms this (A. Kitchener, pers. obs.; contra Leyhausen & Pfleiderer 1999), who considered its skull morphology unique and hence the taxon to be recognised as a distinct species. The pelage coloration is similar to that of leopard cats from northern China and this form has almost certainly arisen from a human introduction. Molecular studies confirm that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat (Masuda et al. 1994, Masuda & Yoshida 1995, Suzuki et al. 1995), although estimated divergence vary from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

 

I was wondering the exact same thing.

 

A new paper has been published which suggests that we should have three snow leopard species, based on sampling mitochondrial DNA from scats:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-sub-species-leopard.html

Link to PDF download on this page: Range-Wide Snow Leopard Phylogeography Supports Three SubspeciesSnow leopard phylogeography | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic

Unfortunately there aren't any photos to demonstrate morphological features.

 

@devilfish - Just to clarify, you accidentally typed three species when the article says subspecies. The summary seems to contradict itself. It starts by saying they exhibit little genetic variation and probably went through a genetic bottleneck only 8000 years ago. Then they say there are three distinct subspecies. It seems their main rationale is geographic separation, which is one criteria for subspecies, but certainly not the only one.

The IUCN magazine with the new cat taxonomy states "On the basis of the evidence so far, we recognise a monotypic species, Panthera uncia." In their color chart they list three historic subspecies. P.u. uncia is green (meaning certain), P.u. schneideri is yellow (meaning maybe) with a note "Possibly distinct; molecular study urgently required." P.u. baikalensisromanii is red (meaning probably not) with a note "Probably not distinct, data lacking."

Please note these Latin names do not match the proposed names in the study referenced above (except the nominate name of course). They propose P.u. irbis (north), P.u. uncia (west), P.u. uncioides (central).

 

I absolutely meant subspecies! Sorry! I really ought to stop commenting late at night...

 

It's ok, I knew what you meant.

 

Another brief article on the proposed snow leopard subspecies: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-sub-species-leopard.html

 

It is interesting research, but subspecies are basically fluid things in the wild. Breeding programs in zoos would do better if they take account of ambiguity and uncertainity. Basically, conserve distinct lineages, but not in an old approach which was designed for well differentiated species: either it is distinct, so keep it distinct, or mix freely.

Another thought is that IUCN conservation status of an animal often changes every few years. Zoos might also have to take it into account.

 

Here is a really interesting article (with photo) of a melanistic serval sighting in Tanzania.
A rare melanistic serval sighting - Africa Geographic