ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[BorneanTiger]

(06-24-2019, 04:53 PM)Shadow Wrote: In latest discussion about subspecies it is good to remember, that legit biologists, zoologists and scientists are having there disagreements. So it would be surprising, if there wouldn´t be disagreements among people who are very interested about wildlife. That´s why it is good to remember, that if professionals can´t find a clear agreement, it can´t be expected here. So writing something like "that logic is absolutely wrong" is very strong statement and rises up question, that with what competence such statement is made? Especially when situation is like that.

Would it be better to say something like, "I can´t agree with your logic, because....". 

When looking at subspecies, one issue are possible genetic differences as far as I know. Then we can have some visible differences in size, looks etc. for some reason making population from some area to be easy to identify when comparing to population in some other area.

Then we can have maybe some other reasons... There can be then agreements or disagreements, that how big genetic differences can be considered so relevant, that some populations should be considered different subspecies. Something like that can be seen in latest debate between tiger specialists, which have leaded to current situation where Cat Specialist Group suggested two subspecies, but which in reality haven´t lead to any changes in for instance Amur tiger conservation. And as far as I know and believe, also no changes what comes to conservation of Bengal tigers.

This issue is quite complex, so when making postings and statements, I think that most would appreciate when text is wrote carefully and making clear points of view(s) and good reasoning easy to read. But everyone have to understand, that now we aren´t discussing about weights or heights, when talking about subspecies. There is no clear measurement to use in judging, who is right or wrong. Keeping that in mind and keeping calm is best way to discuss about a bit unclear things.

I can understand point of view of @Greatearth , but then again @BorneanTiger wrote also good postings and points of views, which can´t be ignored just like that. This kind of discussion/debate can be interesting and giving good information, when respect is remembered. Goal shouldn´t be to win or lose, but to give good reasoning.

Yes, and @Greatearth, a book that mentions that Siberian tigers were temporarily differentiated as Amur (Panthera tigris longipilis) and Korean tigers (Panthera tigris coreensis) also mentions that Caspian tigers were differentiated, with one 'subspecies' being the Balkhash tiger (Panthera tigris trabata) in Central Asia (Lake Balkhash is in eastern Kazakhstan), but that these classifications were rejected, and that is the book of the Soviet authors Heptner and Sludskiy (pages 130–131: https://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov2...0/mode/2up), so if the assertion of taxonomists that Caspian and Siberian tigers should be treated as the same subspecies, for instance, should be rejected on the basis of them being geographically distinct, even if they are closely related, then should the "Balkhash tiger" or "Turkestan tiger" of Central Asia be treated as a different subspecies to the "Trans-Caucasian tiger" (i.e. a tiger in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia: https://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov2...ian+tigers) of West Asia, on the basis of geographical distinction?

Pages 130–141: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

...

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply