|
Why tiger has 9 subspecies not 1?
|
   (05-13-2017, 06:22 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote:(05-13-2017, 05:08 PM)Rishi Wrote:(05-13-2017, 04:41 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Why in NGC Tiger still 9 subspecies not 1 sub like u say People have their own opinions...& others are allowed to disagree. (Why is this in "Premiere league" while there is a fuporum called "Questions"??!!!) 
Moved to question.
NGC means National Geography channel We have some discussion going on real number of tiger subspecies and I think @P.T.Sondaica asking by reading those  (05-13-2017, 06:22 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote:(05-13-2017, 05:08 PM)Rishi Wrote:(05-13-2017, 04:41 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Why in NGC Tiger still 9 subspecies not 1 sub like u say Why you have tagged me? I think that i've never said or written anything like that. Maybe you're confusing me with another user. 
Hi @P.T.Sondaica,
The tiger subspecies issues is not agreed upon by everyone just yet. More recent studies have called for 2 subspecies, the island tigers and mainland tigers. Simply put, the bases of these studies is that there is not enough genetic difference between the mainland subspecies to warrant the label. On the other hand (such as this one), older studies feel this difference is enough. Unlike the term "species", the term "subspecies" has not yet been given a unanimously accepted definition. For instance, orcas have ecotypes rather than subspecies. The difference? Depends on who you ask. Another reason why the authors such as Cooper and Kitchener propose a 2 subspecies classification is, from their own words, to have a "pragmatic approach." Meaning, time is running out and populations of the "subspecies" are running thin and thus, being too specific with subspecies is unneeded trouble. Here, scientific definition is being given in context of reality. Here's a short article that discusses the pros and cons of the 2 subspecies vs. multi-subspecies debate. (05-25-2017, 02:47 AM)tigerluver Wrote: ...r hand (such as this one), olde... How do i tag links like ^^that??.. @P.T.Sondaica Then again science lets everything be debatable..no matter whoever says it. Siberians, Bengals, Sumatrans are easily distinguishable even by a layman. IndoChinese & Malayan..not so much (they weren't even differentiated a few years ago). Caspian & Siberians were later found to be genetically same & not seperate subspecies, inspite of being visibly different, like the Sundarban & (probably) Bhutanese populations with the rest of Bengal tigers. Contagious populations like Bengal-IndoChinese & IndoChinese-Malayan merge into each other with no distinctive boundary. Maybe someday Amoys & Amurs did so as well. Large sprawling populations like Bengals show minor genetic variations, like the average size of India tigers tends to reduce from North to Central to South. Maybe Caspian, Russian & Korean tigers were similarly related. Bottomline, it's complicated...& way too complex to be described perfectly. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |