They are disputed and are based on state lines more than actual evidence. Genetic studies have suggested that they are not distinct and therefore not recognised as subspecies
wildcats?
- Thread starter jefdakilla
- Start date
Yes, I acknowledged that they were disputed in my post.
Disputed at best though. Genetic studies are fairly unanimously considered the modern ultimate decision maker in these situations.
But that's the one that's kept in zoos. Many zoos label that they have African leopards cause it sounds recognisable when it's actually like any other species
What the Hell? Sounds pretty sketchy and they shouldn't do that.
Just either write the damn Subspecies or none
You did, but you also said:
whereas they mostly aren’t - 3 subspecies have been described but their status as subspecies isn’t recognised by the scientific community - it’s disputed (my sense, though it’s not my area, is that most researchers would not consider them to be more than populations). As is often the case, those involved directly in conservation tend to want to split into subspecies because it has consequences for conservation efforts.
Yes they are. Scientific disputes do not automatically change the accepted status quo until enough study is done to do so. Currently the three subspecies are still recognised even while their status is being disputed. In a few more years, who knows?
Most zoos actually don't label them, they put "Leopard" and stick it in the African section. A lot of zoos do this because that is where their leopard habitat has always been. It's not a nefarious "let's trick people muahaha" thing, it's just "why invest the money in a brand new habitat when this perfectly functional and up-to-standard one is ready to go?"What the Hell? Sounds pretty sketchy and they shouldn't do that.
Just either write the damn Subspecies or none
If I understood it correctly from the previous Post they write also on the Signs that they are african Leopards though instead of Indian Leopards or whatever?
What source are you using to assert that they’re considered / recognised as real subspecies by most scientists?
Most zoos don't. A few probably do, or they just reuse old signs. Having done a little research on this while looking for African leopards in zoos (years ago when someone tried to claim they were common) I discovered that San Diego and the National Zoo in Washington DC both have Amur leopards in their African sections. IIRC neither actually labels them as 'African leopards' though.
It is not worth the effort, but since you don't understand what I'm saying I'll try and explain it again: I am not arguing that the subspecies exist/don't exist. I'm arguing that they are currently recognised.
Here's a link to a 2002 paper which suggests the subspecies don't exist. In the abstract, they state plainly that there are three "currently recognised" subspecies. The scientists trying to disprove the subspecies using genetic differentiation accept that the subspecies are currently recognised.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00656.x
The three subspecies existing is the current accepted status quo in the scientific community.
2002 isn’t exactly current… Australian conservation plans (government and more recent than 2002) do not consider them as subspecies.
Edit: and more recent (e.g., 2016) papers very much assert that they are not subspecies.
Last edited:
The government one accepts that three subspecies were previously described, the other one doesn't seem to mention subspecies at all.
But again, I don't think you're getting my point, so I'm going to leave it there.
….
From the paper:
“The relationships among koala CR haplotypes were indicative of a single Evolutionary Significant Unit and do not support the recognition of subspecies”
I understand your point, I just dispute that scientists currently generally recognise 3 subspecies… e.g., This paper (2016) argues that the classification should be changed such that 2 subspecies are recognised, rather than none.
Last edited:
Whatever. It doesn't matter anyway, clearly Frontier thinks I'm right otherwise they wouldn't have muddied the taxonomic waters themselves. At least the binomial they use is correct.
Fair enough. In that case, however, Frontier is either wrong (or at least inconsistent) about the scientific name since they generally include the trinomial for subspecies and they are wrong about the distribution - which they show for the whole species or they are wrong to refer to them as the Queensland koala as the common name.