Summer DLC Speculation 2023

Yes Addax and Oryx are both antelopes. Addax is not oryx, Sable Antelope is not oryx, Oryx is not Addax. Addax could not be considered as oryx.

I really hope you will get the species you really want very soon.

Sorry if Addax is not one of them but for many people it is very important and unique. So in the meantime please don’t spoil the fun for us.

I for one would be okay with an actual third oryx wouldn't you know
 
Last edited:
That's misleading. The family hippotraginae contains three closely-related genera, which contain eight distinct species. If you're calling the addax an oryx you might as well call the sable antelope an oryx, too, since it belongs to the same family of "grazing antelope".
Well, based on mitochondrial genome, it seems that Addax is indeed just placed within the genus Oryx, or the scimitar-horned oryx belongs to the genus Addax. As can be seen in the phylogenetic tree here.
This was the only paper I've found pointing to these results, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.
 
Well, based on mitochondrial genome, it seems that Addax is indeed just placed within the genus Oryx, or the scimitar-horned oryx belongs to the genus Addax. As can be seen in the phylogenetic tree here.
This was the only paper I've found pointing to these results, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.
But does this also apply with nuclear dna?
 
Not that I’ve seen, although it does show addax as being very closely related. As discussed re. Bears and wolves in the other thread, classification isn’t nearly as simple or black and white as lots of people seem to think it is.
I know mitochondrial dna is all the rage these days, but it has the clear downside of being entirely matrilineal, thus has high chance of missing information in closely related populations.
 
I know mitochondrial dna is all the rage these days, but it has the clear downside of being entirely matrilineal, thus has high chance of missing information in closely related populations.
It’s not so much that MtDNA or NDNA is better, it’s that they tell you different things, and have different drawbacks. The real issue is that a lot of people want there to be a single, clear answer with clear demarcations between closely-related species which is only very rarely the case.
 
It’s not so much that MtDNA or NDNA is better, it’s that they tell you different things, and have different drawbacks. The real issue is that a lot of people want there to be a single, clear answer with clear demarcations between closely-related species which is only very rarely the case.
Oh I don't think one is preferable, but being matrilineal is a major drawback. By default you miss at least half the data.

The equivalent is research based on tracking the y-chromosome, but you never see people putting the y-chromosome on a platform like some internet circles do with mtDNA.

And yeah biology and taxonomy is rarely as ever as clear cut as we'd like. Technically there is no real reason to decree anyone of european decent likely part neanderthal, for example.
 
Oh I don't think one is preferable, but being matrilineal is a major drawback. By default you miss at least half the data.

The equivalent is research based on tracking the y-chromosome, but you never see people putting the y-chromosome on a platform like some internet circles do with mtDNA.

And yeah biology and taxonomy is rarely as ever as clear cut as we'd like. Technically there is no real reason to decree anyone of european decent likely part neanderthal, for example.
Well, there's also the limitation that the Y chromosome only works for most of the mammals.
But I definitley agree (and therefore put that you should take it with a grain of salt), there definitley should be some other works which also use some nuclear markers and even morphology to build a better phylogeny.
 
I wonder what the dev diary later is going to be about. Also is there a thread for the fall DLC yet?
Šljus
 
Back
Top Bottom