A question of origins of captive animals in the gallery for anyone with information. At the Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, USA by @Giant Eland At the Terrarium Praha, Czech Republic by @Tomek Animals in Australia are all the local subspecies picata. I would assume that any elsewhere are from imports from New Guinea, where there are several subspecies. I'd suspect the USA population is likely to be a mixed one. But does anyone have any specific information? Just for interest's sake, here are two Australian animals: At the Wildlife Habitat Port Douglas by @Najade And a rescue animal at BatReach by @Chlidonias
To the best of my knowledge, the European population - now down to two or three elderly individuals at Plzen - all comprised melampus, having originated from wildcaught stock from Irian Jaya.
Distributions of New Guinea mammal subspecies can be tricky to work out, with all the conflicting information around, but it seems like melampus is from eastern New Guinea (i.e. Papua New Guinea). If they are from western New Guinea (i.e. Irian Jaya) they should be trivirgata.
The information is definitely conflicting as when searching online to find the subspecies I was looking for, I found reference to hindenburgi - the type specimen of which came from Irian Jaya - having been lumped into melampus, hence my above post. It would be so much easier if I was at home and had access to my copy of the marsupial volume of HMW to see what it says about the dividing line between the various subspecies!
The type locality of hindenburgi is Sattelberg, which is in Papua New Guinea (and it is indeed now combined in melampus).
Now I'm even more confused! In any case, the European ones were from Western New Guinea so whatever is there, is what they were
Were they supposed to be hindenburgi? Or was that unconnected? If they were definitely from western New Guinea then they would be trivirgata (based on my understanding of the distributions).
They definitely came from western New Guinea, the confusion comes from my searching online for the range of the various subspecies and getting in a muddle as noted, the confusion would have been avoided if I had access to my copy of HMW and hence could find the ranges and current taxonomy more reliably!
Sorry, I can't help. I suffer from subspecies headaches. I get a very bad headache when thinking about subspecies splits and lumps (like the lumping of tiger subspecies). The cure is I think of all animals at species level.
You think of all individual animals as distinct species? That is indeed the only way to completely eliminate the problem of species/subspecies-level taxonomic disputes, though it seems rather impractical.
That doesn't really avoid the problem of course, it just moves it up a level, and many species splits and lumps can be as messy as those for subspecies! (just think about ungulates for example, or indeed the current marsupial splits thread)