Here some on the revision of the subspecies of big cats!
Editorial
Subspecies and Conservation
Pumas and jaguars, like tigers, leopards and
cheetahs before them, face losing many subspecific names which have long been in use. In four cases, molecular studies have shown insufficient
differences to validate the so-called “subspecies”, while a study of skulls and skins has led to the recommendation that jaguars should be treated as monotypic species i.e. having no subspecies.
Thirtytwo named subspecies of puma have been reduced to six, among which the 15 in North America have been declared a single subspecies (see page 23). Earlier, only eight of the 27 leopard
subspecies were declared to be valid, and all the leopards in sub-Saharan Africa were classed as one subspecies.
Most subspecific names date from the 19th and early 20th centuries and are not scientific. Names also developed because of gaps in knowledge of the full geographical distribution of a species. In addition hunters and explorers noted differences in size, coloration and coat patterns that they thought deserved recognition, and some even had a desire to gain some fame by getting their names associated with subspecies.
In the case of tigers, there is good reason to believe that in the not-too-distant past all the presently isolated populations were linked, and specialists agree that the five mainland subspecies in Asia do not merit division, although they have developed geographic markers. But there are problems with
the Sumatran tiger and the extinct tigers of Bali and Java.
During the two million years that tigers have existed intermittent ice ages occurred that led to sea level changes so that the Sunda islands, of which Sumatra is one, along with Java and Bali, were at times connected by land to continental south-east Asia. During those periods wildlife travelled freely until rising sea levels isolated populations. Tigers were left on Bali, Java and Sumatra, and molecular studies suggest they became isolated at some time during the past 6,000-12,000 years, during which they distanced themselves genetically to some extent from the mainland tigers. Studies have concentrated
on the tigers of Sumatra. It has been recommended that two tiger subspecies should be recognized – Panthera tigris tigris (currently the scientific name of the Bengal tiger) on the mainland, and P.t. sumatrae or P.t. sondaica on Sumatra.
But, to the confusion of non-specialists, a team from the American Museum of Natural History declared that the Sumatran tiger merited the status of a full species, Panthera sumatrae, parallel to the mainland species, Panthera tigris. The justification for this is actually a different way of classifying
wildlife developed by conservation biologists. Dissatisfied with the traditional Biological Species Concept, they propose a Phylogenetic Species Concept, based on evolutionary lineages, which disposes of subspecies in favour of single taxa in single populations. This, it is argued, more clearly identifies threatened species.
The South China tiger P.t. amoyensis is on the very brink of extinction with no more than a handful thought to survive in the wild, and the 50 in captivity suffering from inbreeding and possible “pollution” by the genes of other subspecies. Programmes to save the South China subspecies are discussed. But if, as the geneticists recommend, South China tigers are just a local population of all the tigers in mainland Asia, then tigers from elsewhere could be used to restore the population.
(Reintroduction or release of tigers is another matter, which is surrounded by its own controversy, which will not be discussed here.)
However, for some people subspecific names for their local cats are cherished e.g. Amur leopard, Arabian leopard, Florida panther, and they often point to significant physical differences between discreet populations – size, coloration, coat patterns. Respected specialists argue that such differences
between leopards in various parts of sub-Saharan Africa warrant subspecific recognition, although not necessarily all those currently listed. In the case of tigers, scientists point out that different habitat and climate types influence physical characteristics, resulting in a cline, but those differences
do not support division into subspecies.
There are also arguments among taxonomists about the genera to which species belong. For many years, until Wozencraft’s Taxonomy of the Felidae was published in 1993, the cats were usually listed under three genera, representing the big cats (Panthera), the lesser cats (Felis), and the cheetah (Acinonyx). However, other taxonomies were also advanced. Wozencraft basically promoted subgenera based on former scientific names to full genetic status, and his taxonomy is generally in use today. The taxonomy does not list subspecies, as such, but the names appear as synonyms for the species.
Tigers, lions, leopards, cheetahs and pumas are not worried about these human constructs and arguments. So how does all this affect conservation efforts? Whatever the arguments, conservation efforts must be directed at saving the separate populations of species, regardless of subspecific designations. Although we concentrate on species, they form part of the ecological web in their habitats, which, in the ultimate analysis, we aim to maintain.
Peter Jackson
From: The Spring, 2000 issue of Cat News.
lynx.uio.no/catfolk/cnissues/downloads/pdf/issue-32.pdfIn this newsletter, you will find also an article on the revision of the Puma and Jaguar subspecies.
