Red Kangaroo Taxonomy

Mjmannella

Mjmannella
This is gonna be slightly spoilery, so just be warned.

Via a... situation that occurred today, the red kangaroo's Zoopedia was briefly seen. In it was can see it's scientific name:
Macropus.png

As you can see, it's showing as Macropus rufus. However, this is outdated taxonomy, and the species should instead be Osphranter rufus. There's still a few days before the DLC comes out so hopefully this can get changed before it releases.
 

arafan

A
I didn't know that this change was done and searched for a cladogram for the genus Macropos, seems like it was divided in three subgenus, on base of genetic evidence. But still, technically Macropos it is still a corret name for the Red Kangaroo, and most zoos still list them as such.
 

Villa11

V
IUCN, Eol, ITIS, GBIF and Mammals species of the world all still list is as Macropus rufus.
The link you share Mjmannella leads to a citation of the book in which it was published (2015), the page in which the authors explain their reasoning is readable on google books for those who want to read up on it, but i will sum it up here:
While they do base themselves on previously published work that divided Macropus in subgenera, this research did not elevate the subgenera into their own genus (2008). The authors of the book made that decision based on the age of the subgenera. (they refer to an earlier statement about this, but that is not readable through google books without buying the book, so if anybody has the actual book please let me know to what they refer)
There is a much more recent paper (2019) that proposes they should be elevate to separate genera. I don't know it this is widely accepted yet.

VetGirl330 said:
Good catch. Frontier doesn't seem too interested in using modern taxonomic classifications. Check out the giraffe and tigers.
Click to expand...

Qoute from the IUCN on the giraffe page:
The IUCN SSC Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group (GOSG) currently recognizes a single species, Giraffa camelopardalis. Nine subspecies of Giraffes are currently recognized (Dagg 2014), although some authorities dispute this taxonomic classification (e.g., Groves and Grubb 2011). (...) Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo. This assessment is based upon an interim consensus that a single species of giraffes is resident on the African continent

And for the tiger:
Taxonomy is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group. We currently follow Luo et al. (2004), who confirmed the division of Tiger into six extant subspecies on the basis of distinctive molecular markers:

The giraffe taxonomy is therefor not outdated, the one I think you refer to is just not accepted (yet). The tiger taxonomy is proposed to only be 2 subspecies by the Cat specialist group, but it hasn't yet been changed. So technically Frontier did not make mistakes with these.
Hope this helps to clear things up :) .
 

Indoraptor27

Indoraptor27
Villa11 said:
IUCN, Eol, ITIS, GBIF and Mammals species of the world all still list is as Macropus rufus.
The link you share Mjmannella leads to a citation of the book in which it was published (2015), the page in which the authors explain their reasoning is readable on google books for those who want to read up on it, but i will sum it up here:
While they do base themselves on previously published work that divided Macropus in subgenera, this research did not elevate the subgenera into their own genus (2008). The authors of the book made that decision based on the age of the subgenera. (they refer to an earlier statement about this, but that is not readable through google books without buying the book, so if anybody has the actual book please let me know to what they refer)
There is a much more recent paper (2019) that proposes they should be elevate to separate genera. I don't know it this is widely accepted yet.



Qoute from the IUCN on the giraffe page:
The IUCN SSC Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group (GOSG) currently recognizes a single species, Giraffa camelopardalis. Nine subspecies of Giraffes are currently recognized (Dagg 2014), although some authorities dispute this taxonomic classification (e.g., Groves and Grubb 2011). (...) Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo. This assessment is based upon an interim consensus that a single species of giraffes is resident on the African continent

And for the tiger:
Taxonomy is currently under review by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group. We currently follow Luo et al. (2004), who confirmed the division of Tiger into six extant subspecies on the basis of distinctive molecular markers:

The giraffe taxonomy is therefor not outdated, the one I think you refer to is just not accepted (yet). The tiger taxonomy is proposed to only be 2 subspecies by the Cat specialist group, but it hasn't yet been changed. So technically Frontier did not make mistakes with these.
Hope this helps to clear things up :) .
Click to expand...
The wiki is 90% copied directly from the Zoopedia, but one of the things that isn't is that tigers have only two subspecies, so I guess that's wrong. Doesn't really suprise me, that wiki doesn't get much love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom