WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
Tiger Hunting Hunters photo postcard Guns Malaysia 20s.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Tiger-Hunting-Hunters-photo-postcard-Guns-Malaysia-20s-/301054888506?hash=item4618450a3a:g:m-8AAOxyNo9StZ2s  *This image is copyright of its original author
I heard that the extinct Javan tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) is rediscovered in Ujung Kulon National Park.
However, it looks like the Javan leopard. I highly doubt if it was a tiger. https://coconuts.co/jakarta/news/declare...onal-park/  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (09-15-2017, 04:09 AM)Greatearth Wrote: I heard that the extinct Javan tiger (Panthera tigris sondaica) is rediscovered in Ujung Kulon National Park.Definitely a leopard, we're discussing it in the big cat news thread. 
Title - 'A REVISED TAXONOMY OF THE FELIDAE'
Source - CATnews, No. 11, winter 2017 Contributions - Kitchener (AC), Breitenmoller-Wursten (CH), Eizirik (E), Gentry (A), Werdelin (L), Wilting (A), Yamaguchi (N), Abramov (AV), Christiansen (P), Driscoll ©, Duckworth (JW), Johnson (W), Luon (S-J), Meijaard (E), O'Donoghue (P), Sanderson (J), Seymour (K), Bruford (M), Groves ©, Hoffmann (M), Nowell (K), Timmons (Z) and Tobe (S) Magazin - CATnews is the newsletter of the Cat Specialist Group, a component of the Special Survival Commission SSC of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is published twice a year, and is available to members and the friends of the Cat Group Link - https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/32616/A_revised_Felidae_Taxonomy_CatNews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Introduction - The main task of the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group is the continuous review of the conservation status of all cat species and subspecies according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species process. A critical subject in this task is the systematic classification of the cat family, the Felidae. The taxonomy of cats has undergone considerable changes in the past, not only at the level of species and subspecies, but even at the level of genus. The classification presently used by the Cat Specialist Group was published in 'Wild Cats - Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan' edited by K. Nowell and P. Jackson (published by IUCN 1996) and is based on the state of research in the early 1990's. Since then mainly studies more advanced morphological, biogeographical, and, foremost, molecular techniques have provided new insights into cat phylogeny and variation, suggesting several important changes with regard to species and subspecies, and the evolutionary relationships between genera and species. These changes may impact on the Red List process and on the listing of taxonomic units in international treaties and national legislation. Therefore the classification used by IUCN institutions has significance beyond the Red List. The Cat Specialist Group initiated a review of the present taxonomic system of the Felidae by an expert group, the Cat Classification Task Force CCTF. Their terms of relevance were endorsed by Dr Simon Stuart, IUCN/SSC Chair 2008-2016 Goal - The CCTF presents, on behalf of the Cat Specialist Group and the IUCN Red List Unit, and based on the best science and expert knowledge presently available, an updated and practical classification of the Felidea, including genera, species and subspecies and the most likely geographical ranges of all taxa Advice - Must read Wildfact - The results of a number of recent studies have been discussed in the recent past by Guate Gojira in this thread and a few others. I will post a number of scans soon. 
The classification of the big cat subspecies has been greatly simplified which is good.
That article posted by Peter. I think It's a good paper. However, I can't accept and absolutely disagree with that CAT SPECIALIST GROUP paper.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/hand...sAllowed=y There is still debating on how to distiniguish species and subspecies. So it may have been true about tiger subspecies are 2. However, it shoudln't be allowed to crossbreed the tiger subspecies that is further from habitat. They need to crossbreed with geologically closer subspecies. For example, The Siberian tiger should crossbreed with the South China tiger or Caspian tiger (Caspian are extinct anyway). The South China tiger should crossbreed with the Siberian tiger or Indochinese tiger. The Indochinese tiger should crossbreed with the Bengal tiger and Malayan tiger The Malayan tiger should crossbreed with the Indochinese tiger and maybe Sumatran tiger (I don't know how much crossbreed between those 2 subspecies) The Bengal tiger should crossbreed the Indochinese tiger. The Sumatran tiger should crossbreed with the Javan tiger and maybe Malayan tiger If extinct Javan tiger and Bali tiger were still alive. Then Bali tiger should crossbreed with the Javan tiger only. The Javan tiger could crossbreed with Beside all of those people members were from Western Europe (looks like mostly UK) , USA, Japan, and other country who used to colonized and murdered tons of animals and humans in past. These people were responsible for corrupting governments in many other continents and making many animals to extinct in first place. Now, they are always blaming people in Asia and Africa for not saving animals in media. I seen it so much they're writing racist things to Asian and African whenever it is about conservation issue. Now, these people are going to mess up the nature order by making hybrid animal in different continents just like they used to extinguish many animals 100 years ago? This shouldn't be allowed. How about they should worry about animals in their place first if they are going to obsessed and keep messing up with animals in another continent/country . I hope Asian governments doesn't allow introducing worthless hybrid tigers to their nature and making more difficult for letting those people to study tigers in their country.. I am worry that those people are going to sending the Bengal tigers in India/Nepal to Malaysia and northeastern China. Then making bunch of worthless hybrid tigers and destroying natural order. Not just the tiger, all of Feline and animals!! It should be only crossbreed with geologically closer animal. I also noticed zoo is ignorant and making bunch of hybrid animal subspecies before: I saw one zookeeper was mixing Sri lankan elephant with elephant from Thailand. Entire nature is becoming insane since 19th century. Look what happened to Guam island, New Zealand, Florida, Hawaii, Galapagos, and many other places. Many of endemic animals in these places were destroyed by human by introducing alien animals or invasive species.
I don't think the hybrid tigers are a big deal, since the modern tiger subspecies are just the combo of the different prehistoric tiger subspecies.
The prehistoric tiger subspecies often doing the genetic exchange with the neighbor subspecies from the geographical proximity; the Sumatran tiger is a great example as the hybrid descendant of the Mainland tiger and Island tiger. (09-19-2017, 03:59 AM)Wolverine Wrote:(08-27-2017, 07:20 PM)peter Wrote: I'll write a full report for the client soon. My client is the reader. Same for you. We were able to solve both mysteries because we cooperated. Excellent work, I think. I printed everything I have and will use it to write a paper. I'll use it for the book, but could sell it to a newspaper as well. At least one is interested. Here's how I got there. I like sports and a few other things. For this reason, I'm a member of a number of clubs. After play, people talk. Good stories are appreciated, but they need to be real. Thanks to you, I had two good stories. I didn't tell them everything, but part of it. I then asked them to find the answer to the question. 'To keep it short: they didn't succeed. When I told them, they refused to believe me. I had to convince them with everything I had. The reporter was so impressed by what he read, that he informed his boss. Russian tigers featuring in a Dutch newspaper? Could be. Many people like good stories. As they can't find them in real life, they go for the usual suspects: movies, books and things like that. The point is that most of these stories are about people. Not a few of them are, ehhh, difficult to digest. Why not have look at reality or the natural world? Not seldom, it has more suspense than the best book. The incidents discussed in this thread were confirmed by people in the know. Many people would like to read more. As I found out more and more about the two male Amur tigers found dead in Wild Russia, my interest changed into amazement. These male tigers clearly were thinking animals very well adapted to the circumstances. It's also clear they developed over time. This is apart from the stamina and power demonstrated by the tiger eaten alive by a terrible disease. Hours before his death, he decided for one more boar. Not just a boar, but a big male. When I meet people with a similar interest, we talk. Not for hours, but days. Not seldom, I even travel to other countries to do just that. Are we outsiders with an interest in something many consider as strange? No doubt we are to some, but the question is who is an outsider. Humans talk human affairs all the time everywhere. What I hear is not much different from what I read in books written two thousands years ago, as humans are driven by the same instincts and goals. Not saying I can see it coming in most conversations, but I have to admit it often is quite close. Many talk about themselves and then they don't, as I seldom see anything close to originality. Strange, as all of us are individuals. But are we? Today, at least in the western hemisphere, many often look, act and talk alike. Same for many systems used in these societies. Things are getting standardized and humans are quick to follow, so it seems. If we add social media and all the rest of it, the picture is quite gloomy. No wonder so many fear they will be replaced by computers in the near future. Some time before I got started in society, I decided for a somewhat different course. If you do, you have to find your way. The advantage is your decisions will be based on personal experience. As you develop, you'll meet people who decided for a similar course. Most of them, like wild animals, are survivors. They also are individuals with original opinions. What they say and think, is theirs. Not a few of them are interested in things often ignored by others. The natural world often features. I also noticed they often have an eye for humans able to communicate in a way many now consider as weird. But it isn't. Over time, humans lost the ability to communicate to, for example, wild animals. Humans can do a lot more, but that should be discussed in another section. Anyhow. Those interested in the natural world know that those who make their home over there are far from inferior. They also know that wild animals in general and big predators in particular are thinking creatures developing all the time. Every time we have the opportunity to get to the details of a true story, it should be discussed. The reason is it has value. There's no question that you contributed in that department. Many thanks again and be sure I'll be waiting for the next one. (09-20-2017, 05:35 AM)Greatearth Wrote: That article posted by Peter. I think It's a good paper. However, I can't accept and absolutely disagree with that CAT SPECIALIST GROUP paper. GREATEARTH I posted the link to the article in order to inform those interested. We need to know about the latest developments. Doesn't mean all researchers agree on two tiger subspecies and doesn't mean I agree. I propose to use the article to start a discussion. In order to do so, we need to remove anything that could block a free exchange of ideas. Strong opinions definitely do not qualify, as they often are related to some kind of fundamentalism. As to the remark on bias raised in your post. I'm not saying that inequality isn't an issue in the western hemisphere (it is), but it shouldn't be discussed in this thread. Anything not related to tigers doesn't belong here. The aim is to focus on the tiger, not something else. As to the new proposal on tiger subspecies. The authors clearly stated that opinions differ in this respect. If you want to debate subspecies, use arguments. The reason is arguments can be discussed, accepted or rejected. Opinions can not. Please edit your last post and concentrate on arguments. 
In a time where other species are being pushed for further division (i.e. giraffes and African lions), I find proposal to simplify classification of the tiger to be bold and unique. The underlying point behind the notion is that management of ~8 subspecies is too difficult and then they are able to find definitions of subspeciation that allow the subspeciation to be simplified. On one hand, the approach is pragmatic. Southeast Asia will probably lose its native tigers in the next century for a plethora of reasons that transcend poaching and habitat loss. The only subspecies that have an okay future as of now are the Amur, Bengal, and maybe Sumatran forms. By simplifying subspeciation, one day the gap in southeast Asia could be refilled without needing the discussion of the wrong genetics being reintroduced. On the other hand, the current premise of subspecies simplification is that there is too much overlap in DNA sequences. The authors in Wiltig et al. (2015) make a good point that clouded leopard subspecies lack these overlaps. However, the issue stands that authors diversifying subspecies today usually do not seem to call to attention such overlaps in their works. This means there is an underlying different in subspecies definition. As of now, zoology is still a bit spread apart. With upsides and downsides, there is no central body defining these terms across species and thus there is confusion. In my mind, the optimal approach would be to preserve each population nonetheless as it at the worst, cannot hurt. Plus, allopatric (sub)speciation exists and by conventional terms, the distant between Ussuri and India has been a barrier in itself for millenia, with or without a hybridizing region in China. Thus one could argue that the genotypic differences between the Bengal and Amur tigers that were attributed to being man-made by Wiltig et al. (2015) could also be simply attributed the barrier of distance. Nevertheless, the reality of the difficulty of this task is there and perhaps one day such discussion will be obsolete when tigers and humans can no longer coexist and the former disappears moreso than it already has.
On another note I found this interesting map on India's population, specifically in Uttar Pradesh.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Seeing a nation home so much of humanity while also somehow retaining fauna that to the instinct have no place near human populations (i.e. predators like the tiger) is inspiring. Thus, perhaps rather than focusing on managing tigers by making classification simpler, the nation that has been able to somehow keep multiple populations of one of the largest predators today should be focused on as a model of what to do. In other words, the tiger somehow has been kept off the edge of extinction in a land where statistics would say there should only be humans. It would be a good direction for scientists to understand what factors (that will likely transcend biology) have allowed India to do such a good job relative to the rest of the world. You can have 2 subspecies or 8, but if management gets sloppy you'll have none in the end.
FOUR FACTORS AFFECTING CONSERVATION - CAMBODIA AS AN EXAMPLE
I agree the new classification could be seen as an attempt to make life a bit easier for those involved in conservation and management, Tigerluver. However. In the end, as you wrote, it is about commitment and management. And not subspecies. The only countries where tigers seem to stand a chance in the near future, in that order, are Russia, China, India, Nepal and Bhutan. In the first two countries, politics is important. It's well-known that Putin in particular has a keen interest in wildlife. It had a result. A result that could have inspired China. The new giant reserve in the northeastern part of the country is a clear statement regarding conservation. It's likely that the new policy on conservation will produce results in the next decades. In India, Nepal and Bhutan, culture and outlook seem to be major factors. In spite of the commitment seen in these countries, tigers are still poached. Even in Russia, about 20 tigers are killed by poachers every year. Not so long ago, I posted a Russian newspaper article in which a wealthy man from Vladivostok featured. Although he shot many rare species, they couldn't really get to him. They tried for a number of years, but he got away with a fine. A big one, but a fine. This means that legislation is a major problem in Russia. Another major problem is protection. Those paid to protect rare wild animals often face well-armed poachers. What I see, is a situation not that different from a guerilla at times. Poachers, or those employing them, are in the know as well. When they see a weak spot, they act. Just before the turn of the century, Cambodia had close to a thousand wild tigers. A conservative estimate, many thought. About 15 years later, they were gone. All of them: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodias-tiger-population-second-highest-world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Cambodia https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/06/tigers-declared-extinct-in-cambodia All in all, there seem to be four factors that affect conservation: commitment (politics and culture), funding, protection and legislation. The focus seems to be shifting towards protection and legislation.  (09-18-2017, 05:30 AM)peter Wrote: Title - 'A REVISED TAXONOMY OF THE FELIDAE' I still remember the first time that I read this document. A few days after that you put it here in the forum and the reactions were few but important. It is not a secret that I am of the idea that Dr Kitchener have a point that the "subspecies" of tigers are not based in good descriptions or good samples. In fact, new genetic studies and morphological analysis from skulls do not support the old classifications. I think that this new approach will be very useful for conservation as at this time, there are only 5 wild populations that are more or less viable for the long term: Indian subcontinent, Russia, Sumatra, Malaysia and Thailand. The last three are greatly endangered and the only one that have enough captive population for a correct recovery, of this 3, is the Sumatran population. I will like to make a very good post explaining the reasons why I think that the creation of "subspecies" is actually not helping in tiger conservation. For example, if take a look to the difference between Bengal and Thailand tigers, there is practically nothing to separate them, the coat patterns and almost the same and in fact, there is more difference between the Indian populations than between Thailand and Central Indian tigers, just to give an example. Also in the size issue, the records of size of Indochinese tigers are ridiculously small and is almost impossible to get a good comparison between them and the large sample from the Indian population; also the sizes overlap a lot and the largest specimens seems to be of the same size. It is true that Mazák found differences between them, but using modern methods, this differences seems only clinal and not enough to separate them as "subspecies". The same happen with the Sonda populations, as with a careful look, the difference between Sumatran, Javan and Bali tigers are close to none. I will go deeper on this in the future. However I will like to add that this new approach must be analyzed very carefully, because although this means that there is no "difference" between Bengal and Amur tiger at "subspecies" level, Wilting et al., 2015 clearly specified that the distance between these two populations support its separation as different "management units", which means that it will be correct to keep them separated as they form separate evolutionary units with different adaptations in its morphology and genetic. In this line of ideas, the captive tigers that are a mix between Bengal and Amur tigers are NOT useful for conservation as they represent different conservation units and the mix between Bengal-Sumatran or Amur-Sumatran are even worst. In few words, this classification, correctly understood, is NOT a open door for the free use of mixed tigers at all. More details in the future. Greetings to all. 
In general, only the tiger has very selective breeding program in the captivity, but not for the lion.
The lions in the captivity are mostly mixed between the two subspecies, and people seem to have least concern about it. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 8 Guest(s) |