There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
05-24-2020, 12:43 PM( This post was last modified: 05-24-2020, 01:24 PM by BorneanTiger )
(05-24-2020, 08:41 AM)Matias Wrote: An opinion:
This study proposes good reflections (even for a short time, due to the few specimens used - only 1 in Central Africa).
The fact that Dr. Ross Barnett is present, is very significant and shows that his study published in 2014 was complemented with more subsidies. The improvement of evaluation methods, in the whole genome instead of mtDNA, has brought new horizons and, to them, we must understand these new implications. Conceptually, the "ancestry" understood here shows that all lions, whether Barbary, Western or Indian, all have a genome of lions from Southern / East Africa. The most recent flows identify their paths to conservation - see genetic improvements - be in the establishment of a new population in North Africa, or in the mixing of genes with Indian lions.
An important issue of the Article is in the final lines - in the wolves of the Royalle Island - where mixing genes did not produce specimens more able to survive, making it implied that deeper genetic knowledge is needed when establishing gene mixing - linking the functioning of genes to multiple contexts , both physiological and ecological. Issues closely linked to geneticists and lion ecologists.
With a conservationist bias, I prefer to reduce subspecies, so, answering your question @Sully, I prefer the division of tigers into two subspecies: continental and insular. In lions, the understanding, before this scientific article, Dr. Laura Bertola (2015) recognized, via mtDNA, three clades in Africa: North, West and Central; eastern and southern, observing microsatellite Loci criteria and a very small number of different genes in each of these three groups (it seems to me that a wider range of unique genes would be needed to distinguish species from subspecies, define a percentage of different genetic factors would be a good point). Conservation implications basically lie in the same path as this article. The IUCN has not changed its diagnosis in any way, even recognizing these new criteria, so we continue to have two subspecies of lions. Until now, a right strategy.
I don't understand why so many people prefer the existence of countless subspecies. In the recent past, lions were distributed according to unscientific criteria - lions from a single country were classified as subspecies: size or color of mane, size of tuft of hair on the tail ... anecdotal criteria. "Genetic diversity is the result of combining the time factor with geographic isolation."
Many cling to very recent time factors. In this field, lions from the Atlas are closely linked to Western lions due to the coastal paths. Its close proximity to the central lions is not only linked to the connection between western and central clades, but also at the time of the "Green Sahara", a true bridge between lions from the north and the center of Africa, not forgetting the coastal paths through Egypt and Libya (what I believe is that this last corridor must have closed around 3,000 or 4,000 years ago - as a result of large-scale human occupation). In Roman times, the final connection was to Western lions, despite the Sahara desert having a milder climate and temperature than it is today and relic lion populations must have remained in parts of the A-haggar, Tassili, Air Moutains mountains. At the Ennedi plateau, lions were only extirpated in the 1920s. From north to center Africa was connected.
These recent studies demonstrate that the Rift Valley did not divide the lion populations, as it did with a series of antelopes (the most morphologically healthy case is the eland Lord Derby). So Asian lions are the most genetically distant lion population - the article suggests up to 30,000 years of separation, which does not indicate flow restriction, the path has remained clear for many millennia. It is plausible to maintain two subspecies due to inherently geographical distance factors. The double infraorbital form of Asian lions (which is not a characteristic of the subspecies, since it is not present in all individuals) is due to monogamous factors. A genetic defect. The fold does not justify a differentiation, nor is it present in 100% of Indian lions, and 3% of African lions also have this fold.
I prefer to join efforts and not share efforts. I see much more benefits from developing lion reintroduction / translocation projects when we can use multiple individuals, from many origins and locations. Although geographic proximity is very important, as it better enables individuals to be located in terms of pathogens and other diseases endemic to the area. In the case of Indian lions, there is no way to infer this type of prevention.
Subspecies make it more attractive for the emergence of local conservation projects, from a simplistic point of view this is not bad. After all, all wild animals must be saved, each country must maintain nature reserves whether they represent their nature in the best way. However, it keeps more people in the conservation business, more NGOs, more fundraising campaigns, greater fragmentation of the financial flow to places that, ultimately, will not be successful in conserving the chosen object. The question also remains: it is ethical to divide a species to facilitate people, even well-intentioned, to obtain financial flow from people who believed in the existence of genetically unique lions. Geopolitics of lions, tigers and every animal that generates greater sentimental attachment. Conservation is big business, and protecting cats is the culmination of the collection. There is great political and economic interest behind the taxonomic changes.
@peter @Shadow @Rishi @GuateGojira I don't necessarily reject the idea that the number of subspecies had to be revised, because they were initially based on both morphological and geographical grounds, such as the Barbary and West African lions, and the Amur and Bengal tigers, but an issue to bear in mind here is practical implications. Even if say the Amur tiger is a member of the same subspecies as the Bengal tiger, that is the "Continental / Mainland Asian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)", for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean that you can transfer Bengal tigers from India or South Asia to the Amur region, where the relatively endangered Amur tiger lives, to boost the population of "Mainland tigers" there, does it? The Bengal tigers (which are used to hot or humid jungles or forests, aside from those in the Himalayan region) would have to adjust to the freezing climate of the Amur region, but they don't even have the thick winter fur which their Siberian relatives have, so even if they are within the same subspecies, they are still different populations of tigers which are used to different climates, not to mention that significant genetic differences do exist between them.
