The Caspian Tiger (Panthera tigris virgata)

[GuateGojira]

Exactly, that is my point. Those "differences" pointed out by old hunters and classic naturalist are only intraspecific differences, but by no means are evidence to say that these were a diference subspecies.

The case is still not closed, not because scientists are not agree, but for the contrary, is the popular knowledge that not accept this equality.

The example of the lion populations is a great one. Dubach et al. (2013) using the largest sample of lions ever used and other studies, came to the conclusion that only TWO subspecies of lions can be separated:
1. Panthera leo leo - West and north of Africa, Persia and India (this last can be still conserve its name "persica" just for conservations porpuses).
2. Panthera leo melanochaita - All East Africa and all Southern African regions.

In the case of the tigers, the "old" taxonomical classification of Pocock, Mazák and others is completely UNRELIABLE. Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010), quoting Kitchener (1999) pointed out very well that this "classification" was based in very few specimens, check this out:

*This image is copyright of its original author

As we can see, the classification of the Caspian tiger is rubbish, as only one specimen was used, and even this "one" is not certain. In this situation, it will be futile to try to separate them (Caspian + Amur). Besides, the intraspecific variations, like pelage, skull differences and size can be easily explained as only clinal variations. This same happen in the Indian subcontinent, with even greater differences between the Sundarbans tigers and the Nepalese tigers, but at the end, they are the same.

The morphological studies of J. H. Mazák (2008) using a large skull database showed that the Caspian tiger overlap with all the mainland tiger groups, showing that this group separated from the main steam still when the other populations were not entirely developed they own characteristics, but they match overall with the Amur tigers. The genetic studies, using specimens from the entire range of the Caucasus region, proved that they are the same, as close or closer than the Indian and the Barbary lion!

So, like GrizzlyClaws say, this was just the tiger subspecies with the largest range recorded in modern times and then it most be classified under the same scientific name, the older one in this case, which will be Panthera tigris virgata.

Now, the topic itself can be used to post information about all the different specimens and information gathered from this population, but with the know fact that this group don't represent a different subspecies and is just the western population of the still living Amur tiger. Interestingly, this is the only point where Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) agree with the other scientists.

  Reply