This quotation, included in two of the articles, makes me understanding but skeptical of the motivation for reclassification. It sounds as if this move is merely to make conservation efforts relatively easier and to help avoid the stigma of dealing with possible extinctions. I don't feel like the information presented in these articles really illustrates the science behind the decision, which just makes it sound as if the scientists are looking to 'fix' the problem of endangered tigers by collapsing the number of species. Maybe there's a real science hidden in the paper, but it might be better to publicize, for example, why Bengal and Siberian can be considered one species. That is information worth explaining to a non-scientist. The Amur-Caspian thing, last I heard, showed they had been the same species until a few thousand years ago, when they slightly split, but there was debate over whether that made them one species or not.
There is only one species of tiger, and two or more subspecies depending on which classification you follow. Can we recognise the various tigers appropriately and not call them seperate species.
The Siberian tiger is most similar to the Bengal tiger which are very bigger than Indochinese, Malayan and Sumatran tiger. Malayan and Indochinese are also very similar (or almost indistinguishable). But I think it would be ridiculous if zoos start to manage tigers they keep just as two subspecies (continental and Sunda). Then in a similar way, the leopard subspecies can be consumed in less subspecies, which would also be ridiculous.
Many subspecies do not stand up to critical examination, and describe variation along a cline. Many now isolated populations would have been connected in the recent past. To be meaningful subspecies must show real variation. I can see no problem in recognising two well differentiated subspecies in tigers and managing the zoo populations as such.
I am not saying you are wrong, but could it be possible the reason Siberian are larger is because of the climate? Coyotes in Texas are the size of a medium dog, but coyotes in Canada look like wolves. Same with deer and mountain lions. Could this be possible for tigers as well?
We can test for this using a "common garden experiment" design, whereby individuals from different populations are transplanted to the same environment. If the morphological differences persist, they are due to genetics rather than phenotypic plasticity. Fortunately, these common garden experiements have been performed (incidentally) with tigers in zoos across the world. The differences between Amur and other mainland tigers are clear and consistent; I think it would be madness not to treat them as separate subspecies.
How sure we can be in regards that all tigers in zoos are kept in the same conditions, since many zoos allows their Siberian tigers to stay outside when the weather is too cold (freezing) or constantly in the outdoor enclosures, while the same thing, most often is not the case with Sumatran tiger (or Malayan)? What about hot summers for Siberian tigers - isn't a period of several months (from the cold winter to the hot summer - in zoos located under 44 degrees Northern latitude regularly happening) too short for a Siberian tiger shows its phenotypic plasticity to reduce the coat density?
It's certainly not a well-designed experiment, I'll grant you that, but the differences nonetheless remain clear and consistent. Actually, I vaguely remember hearing that Bengal tigers grow thicker coats when kept in colder climes, so you're partially correct.
So true. Not to detail the thread, but I've wondered how many lion subspecies truly exist and if zoos could or would manage them as separate subspecies.
Animals from Northern climates are generally larger. I'm not sure how coyotes are divided as subspecies but with mountain lions the Florida panther is considered a distinctive subspecies and the Coues deer and Key deer are miniature white-tailed deer subspecies found in southern locations.
I don't believe African lions can be separated into two or more different subspecies. Even the Asiatic lion is physically almost identical to African lion; I haven't read what genetic profiles says about this.
Looking at pictures of the different, current tiger subspecies, there is not big differences (excluding the size of the Siberian tiger) between all those continental tigers. Maybe it will be best zoos to continue with the current breeding programmes and to include a breeding programme for ''hybrid'' (?) tigers in order to preserve the ''Bengal'' genes. The breeding programme for hybrid tigers don't need to be very intense and to be maintained at a stable level of 100 hybrid tigers in breeding condition in zoos worldwide.
@Arizona Docent and @elefante both make excellent points. It would indeed be devastating if all sub species now considered to be Continental tigers were bred freely with each other and ultimately created a melting pot of what became reclassified as hybrids because they went back to the original classification. The Sumatran tiger breeding programme will of course be unaffected which I think is a blessing. The rate of fatalities in tiger introductions is, as with most cats, is quite high. Having a disparity in size is utlimately a risk factor in an already unpredictable introduction so I would advise against mating a large Siberian male tiger with a small Malayan female etc.
And this is an established rule in ecology-- Bergmann's rule I personally cannot differentiate between a (for example) Sumatran tiger and a Malayan Tiger, although a Siberian next to a Malayan is indeed (again, to me) a big difference. But this could perhaps be attributed to aforementioned Bergmann's rule and it's just two subspecies? Although of course I could just be displaying ignorance and not referring to the genetics of each of the subspecies/I'm not trained enough in differentiating them by phenotype.
What about Tsavo lions? Is that a separate subspecies? These are the males that often don't have manes. African and Asiatic lions look similar but I had heard they were different genetically. I could be totally wrong.
I was trying to think of the name of that rule, thanks for the reminder. It does seem strange though that the Caspian tiger would be as big and as long haired as the Amur tiger if they were found in river corridors in deserts. I can't differentiate the smaller subspecies either, just the difference between the tropical ones and Amur tigers. My question is, how serious is this article to begin with? This seems out of nowhere.
Since people have brought up pumas and lions, I will refer you to this discussion thread: online newsletter for small cats. If you look at the latest posts, it links a newly released cat taxonomy (which is also my reference for this tiger thread). There are apparently only two subspecies of lions, and NOT what I would expect (which is Asiatic and African). It is in fact Cape lion (far tip of South Africa but now extinct) and all others. As for pumas, there are only two and all North American are the same (so there is no Florida panther per se).
Actually, having read some other information about lion subspecies, in the two-subspecies system, the "Cape" lion is not limited to the extinct lions formerly from the Cape area, but includes all lions from southern and eastern populations (the subspecies name, melanochaita, given to the Cape subspecies takes precedence under nomenclature rules). The nominate subspecies covers northern and western African populations and the Asian population. The wikipedia entry on lions briefly summarizes this taxonomic classification. I have a fundamental problem with anyone putting too much credence in any one study that purports to upend the subspecies-level taxonomy. Defining what is or is not a subspecies as compared to a species is (or, in fact, what comprises a subspecies), in most if not all cases, is not a hard and fast line - the dividing line can depend on who's looking at it. In the case of lions and tigers, I find it interesting (and somewhat surprising, in the case of lions) to see how the various isolated populations traditionally considered subspecies are related to one another, but am in no way convinced that the mere fact that Asian, north African, and west African lions are more closely related than south and east African lions suggests that only 2 subspecies is the best answer.
The Green Sahara pump is what causes the eastern and southern lions to be distinct: the Sahel received influxes of fauna from the Mediterranean.
