Genetic / taxonomic issues for the Cat Specialist Group

[BorneanTiger]

@peter @Shadow @Rishi @GuateGojira @Sully In "Man-Animal Interactions ...", @Spalea had quoted this article as saying that a new genetic study on lions had been published this year, so I checked the original article, which was linked to in the former, and it says something interesting about the issue of subspecies: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/...1919423117

"Implications for Conservation.

Historically, up to 11 subspecies of modern lions have been recognized (41). In 2017, the number was reduced to two in light of the results of molecular studies (42): 1) P. leo; in Asia, West Africa, and Central Africa and 2) P. leo melanochaita; in East and South Africa. Here, we show that although Central African lions cluster with P. leo leo in mtDNA-based phylogenies (SI Appendix, Fig. S1), their genome-wide ancestry shows higher affinity with P. leo melanochaita (Fig. 1B and SI Appendix, Fig. S19). Therefore, our results suggest that the taxonomic position of Central African lions may require revision. We caution, however, that our data are based on genome-wide data from a single wild-born Central African lion (SI Appendix, Table S1), and a recent study using whole-genome and microsatellite data suggests that Central African lions from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Cameroon preferentially cluster with P. leo leo (26). In addition, gene flow in Central and West Africa may have been common in the past (Fig. 3B): both lineages probably lived in sympatry for long periods of time and their genetic divergence is not high. In any case, further studies should increase sampling from West and Central Africa to fully resolve this issue."

This study has multiple authors, including Ross Barnett, Stephen O’Brien, and Nobuyuki Yamaguchi. The latter 2 are members of the Cat Specialist Group who had worked on lions before, and had cooperated with fellow CSG members Shu-Jin Luo and Carlos Driscoll, among others, to publish the study in 2009, which showed that the Amur and Caspian tigers were genetically close enough to be considered the same subspecies. O’Brien, Luo and Driscoll had also contributed to the study, published in 2018, about there being 6 monophyletic clades of tigers, or 6 living subspecies of tigers, after the main CSG had published a taxonomic revision of felids in 2017, in which they argued that there were only 2 subspecies of lions and tigers, as mentioned above in this thread. Around the same time, Barnett and Yamaguchi had contributed to a study, published in 2018, in which they mentioned that there were phylogenetic differences between populations that were considered to be within the same subspecies (using the CSG's classification), such as Western and Central African lions, without necessarily arguing against the classification of 2 subspecies for lions.

To put it simply:

* In 2009, Barnett and CSG members O’Brien, Yamaguchi, Luo and Driscoll said that the Caspian and Siberian tigers were genetically close enough to be considered as belonging to the same subspecies

* In 2017, the CSG published their controversial classification, in which they recognised only 2 subspecies of lions and tigers, respectively the Northern lion (Panthera leo leo), Southern lion (Panthera leo melanochaita), Continental or Mainland Asian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and Sunda Islands' tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica)

* Then CSG members O’Brien, Luo and Driscoll 'rebelled' by contributing to a study, published in 2018, to say that there were 6 living subspecies of tigers, while Barnett and CSG member Yamaguchi contributed to a study, published in the same year, in which they mentioned that there were phylogenetic differences between populations of lions within the same 'subspecies'

* Now in 2020, Barnett and CSG members O’Brien and Yamaguchi have contributed to a study, in which they and others suggest that the taxonomic position of Central African lions may need to be revised! Reply