Glad to see this thread is back! Can't wait for the rest!
Red muntjac species complex
The Red or Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) was previously considered as a single species ranging from India to Indonesia. Mainly based on a different chromosome number this species has been split in 2: Northern red muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) that ranges from the Indian peninsula and Indochina to N Malaysia and the Southern red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) in Malaysia and Indonesia. This split is accepted by e.g. the IUCN but is not free of discussion, mainly because chromosome numbers have only been sampled from very few individuals. In the book Ungulate Taxonomy G&G further split Red muntjak additionally recognizing Muntiacus malabaricus from Sri Lanka and W Ghats, India; Muntiacus aureus NW & C India and parts of Myanmar; Muntiacus nigripes from Hainan, Yunnan and N Vietnam. Muntiacus montanus from the Sumatran highlands.
Apart from Muntiacus montanus these splits are generally not accepted and the IUCN red list authors can tell exactly why:
Three species are for now recognized:
Northern red muntjac
The Northern red muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) ranges from in the Indian Peninsula through Indochina S to N Malaysia at the Isthmus of Kra. Chromosome count 2n=8 in females, 2n=9 in males. The following 8 subspecies have traditionally been recognized, though their validity is sometimes doubtful.
M.v. vaginalis Nepal. Bhutan, NE India, Bangladesh
M.v. annamensis S Laos, S Vietnam & Cambodia
M.v. aureus Pakistan, N & C India
M.v. curvostylis Myanmar, Thailand
M.v. malabaricus S India & Sri Lanka
M.v. menglalis S China, possibly N Indochina
M.v. nigripes Hainan Peninsula
M.v. yunnanensis S China
G&G merge annamensis, menglalis into curvostylis and yunnanensis in nigripes.
No subspecies:
![]()
@Giant Eland , Shadow Nursery, USA
Muntiacus vaginalis vaginalis
![]()
@Chlidonias , Assam State Zoo, India
Muntiacus vaginalis curvostylis
![]()
@Giant Eland, Khao Keow Forest & Wildlife Reserve Park, Thailand
Southern Red muntjac
The Southern red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) is a monotypic species from Malaysia, S of the Isthmus of Kra and Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Bali and associated islands. Chromosome count 2n=6 in females, 2n=7 in males.
![]()
@Giant Eland , Taman Safari Bogor, Indonesia
Sumatran mountain muntjac
The Sumatran mountain muntjac (Muntiacus montanus) is a species of questionable validity of which hardly anything is known. This species is limited to mountanous areas of W Sumatra, Indonesia.
No pictures of this species have been uploaded to the gallery.
Turns out I don't think much of that split. It is likely I actually already knew about it and forgot again because (to quote the IUCN) it "rests on little evidence". Phrases used throughout the IUCN taxonomy account are in the vein of "postulated", "assumption", "assumed", "purported", "minor", and it ends with "There appears to have been no significant further investigation of this taxonomic split since 2008, and thus the 2014 reassessment largely for the sake of status quo maintains this taxonomic treatment".
Groves (2003) elected to raise non-Sundaic forms of M. muntjak (s.l.) from subspecific taxa to the species M. vaginalis, leaving the Sundaic forms to constitute M. muntjak (s.s.). In 2008 the IUCN Red List chose to follow this split, with the following caveats. This position, already postulated by previous authors (e.g. Groves and Grubb 1990), rests on little evidence, primarily the assumption that all taxa within M. muntjak in the Sunda region carry a unique karyotype different from all M. vaginalis in northern regions. However, the Sundaic karyotype seems to have been documented in only a few individuals from the Malay Peninsula south of the Isthmus of Kra (Wurster and Aitkin 1972, Groves and Grubb 1990, Groves 2003, Tanomtong et al. 2005), assumed to be M. muntjak (the type locality of the later is Java). Other purported differences (e.g. dorsal darkening and short nasals, Groves 2003, Groves and Grubb 1990), if they can be considered diagnostic characters rather than traits (see below), appear minor rather than ones likely to separate species-level taxa. Although differences in chromosome number between muntjacs appears likely to constitute a good species boundary, preventing extensive interbreeding (see Groves and Grubb 1990), a much wider sampling of karyotype (especially within the presumed range of M. muntjak (s.s.)) is needed to place on solid ground the systematic position which assumes separate and widespread ranges for the two so far identified karyotypes. There appears to have been no significant further investigation of this taxonomic split since 2008, and thus the 2014 reassessment largely for the sake of status quo maintains this taxonomic treatment.
except it being stated somewhere that most if not all American & European are likely duvaucelii... But if someone else has new information that would shed light on the status of these branderi specimens, that would be great...
Port Lympne have a herd of about a dozen. I believe they were originally sourced from one of the Berlin zoos, probably East. I've seen them listed as branderi too, but think this may simply be incorrect. The wild population of branderi reached critically low levels in the 1970-80's with only around 70 left. I think its more likely that all/most swamp deer that have entered zoos are from the more numerous duvaucelii populations of Northern India.
I don't want to make too far a digression, but wearnt Aspinall's ssp. branderi imported in the same shipment as their Four honored horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) from India? I think @TeaLovingDave told me this.
I also noted that I did not cover the remaining Muntjac species and I will get on with that soon, as with the genus Cervus, which is an absolute taxonomic nightmare/land-off-opportunity.
I don't want to make too far a digression, but wearnt Aspinall's ssp. branderi imported in the same shipment as their Four honored horned antelope (Tetracerus quadricornis) from India? I think @TeaLovingDave told me this.
I believe Berlin does indeed have some animals that were brought in from Berlin, but they also list themselves as keeping both the nominate and branderi (only one of the latter at this point).
~Thylo
I guess you mean Port Lympne not Berlin(third word..) I think I queried them once about this but got no response. It would be interesting to establish the facts here.
@lintworm Kudos (or should I say Kudus) on this fantastic work!
Admittedly I'm not quite clear exactly how MacNeill's or Sichuan Deer should be categorized, but from the scientific names offered on zootierliste:
Cervus wallichii hanglu
(Syn.: Cervus elaphus hanglu)
(Syn.: Cervus hanglu)
perhaps my photos here: 2013: Shadow Nursery - ZooChat
& 2013: Shadow Nursery - ZooChat
would qualify for Cervus hanglu hanglu- not yet represented here.
Zootierliste is outdated, as it is clear now that hanglu belongs to the elaphus group, despite morphological characters that look more like the canadensis group. Red deer from E China belong to the canadensis group, whether multiple species should/could be recognized is something for the next post.
No pictures of smithemani or anselli have been uploaded to the gallery.
This is going to be a long post....
Bushbuck
The Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) is one of the most widespread antelopes occurring in about 40 African countries. Bushbuck also occur in a wide variety of habitat types, they are only absent from (semi-)arid regions and closed canopy forests, but occur from sea level to 4000 meters altitude... Given their wide distribution and variation in coat patterns a large number of subspecies has been described (up to 46....). There has been some concensus on grouping the west-central subspecies into the "scriptus" group and the southern and east-central in the "sylvaticus" group. This division is based on the fact that the scriptus group are generally brighter colored and are more clearly spotted and striped, whereas the sylvaticus group is more plain in coat patterns.
The following subspecies overview is taken from Kingdon's Mammals of Africa:
"scriptus" group:
T.s. scriptus (including gratus typicus, obscurus) Senegal to Liberia
T.s. phaleratus (including knutsoni, johannae) Cameroon, Gabon, Equa. Guinea, W Congo, W DRC
T.s. bor (including cottoni, dodingae, meridionalis, pictus, punctatus, signatus, uellensis) NE Nigeria, via Lake Chad to NW Uganda & South Sudan
T.s. decula N,S,W Ethiopia and parts of Eritrea
"sylvaticus" group
T.s. sylvaticus southern and eastern coast of South Africa
T.s. roualeynei southeast Africa
T.s. ornatus South-central Africa
T.s. dama (including barkeri, dianae, heterochrous, locorinae, sassae, simplex) Uganda, W-Tanzania, Albertine rift
T.s. delamerei (including eldomae, haywoodi, meruensis, olivaceus, massaicus) from eastern South Africa to central Kenya via Malawi, Tanzania, E Zambia, E Zimbabwe and Mozambique
T.s. fasciatus NE Tanzania, E Kenya, Somalia
T. s. meneliki (including powelli) Ethiopian highlands
The following map from Moodley & Bruford (2007) gives the best indication of which (putative) subspecies occurs where:
![]()
We will come back to their research later...
From this subspecies division based on their research G&G recognize the following species:
"scriptus" group
T. scriptus
T. phaleratus
T. bor (including dodingae)
"sylvaticus" group
T. decula
T. sylvaticus (including roualeynei, barkeri, dama, delamerei)
T. meneliki
T. fasciatus
T. ornatus
What is interesting is that contrary to Kingdon, decula is grouped within the "sylvaticus" group.
Sample sizes
Sample sizes for skins are not reported.
Skulls (males only)
scriptus
W Africa (7-9)
Lower Volta (1)
phaleratus (28-39)
bor (22-39)
dodingae (2)
decula (7-8)
powelli (3-4)
meneliki (19-20)
barkeri (8)
dama (40-64)
delamerei (29-46)
fasciatus (9-10)
ornatus (33-45)
sylvaticus (10-25)
Horns (males only)
scriptus
W Africa (2-8)
Lower Volta (2-5)
phaleratus (17-41)
bor (20-42)
dodingae (0-2)
decula (0-7)
powelli (0-4)
meneliki (0-18)
barkeri (3-10)
dama (56-77)
delamerei (27-47)
fasciatus (2-10)
ornatus (32-48)
sylvaticus (8-32)
The reported sample sizes are mostly quite large, the large variation within taxa in horn sample sizes is because horn breadth is hardly measured, whereas horn length and horn span are widely reported. That sample sizes for skins are not reported is somewhat of a problem, as there is a lot of variation in coat patterns. Given the large sample size for skulls and horns, they might have had large sample sizes for skins as well, but of that we cannot be sure.
Skins
scriptus is being described as rick dark rufous with a blackish suffusion, 3-10 distinct stripes and both an upper and lower longitudinal flank band and a circle of white haunch-spots are present. Females are paler than males, but with similar markings. Forelimbs often have a black line right down on the front.
phaleratus is being described as reddish brown without blackish suffusion, except on the withers and especially in females the upper longitudinal band is absent.
bor is being described as more ochery less red in colour, transverse stripes less distinct, no dark suffusion on the withers, upper longitudinal band short or absent, the lower generally broken into spots and streaks. White mark on the throat.
decula is being described as ochery to yellow-brown with ofen a black suffusion on the back, white markings indistinct, 2 longitudinal bands often present in young animals.Front of the forelegs black with white on the front of the knees.
meneliki is being described as dark brown to black in adult males, withonly white on the axillae and occasional white flecks on the haunches and above the hooves. Females are lighter, red with tendency for the white marks to be clearer. Very occasionally traces of white down the forelegs (note: this is a highland taxon)
fasciatus is being described as males dark gray-brown above, gray on the sides, females more yellowish, young animals more rufous. 6 stripes generally distinct, many haunch spots and a broken longitudinal flank band. No black on the crown and the nose, chevron below the eyes in the females.
ornatus is being described as males rich dark rufous, becoming black on the withers, 6-8 white stripes, longitudinal bands reduced to a row of spots, many haunch spots. Females light-brown with fewer stripes. Outer sides of the legs black above the knees, the inner sides white, with a broad black "garter" above the knees and the hock. White stripe from the knees and the hocks to the pasterns.
sylvaticus is being described as older males deep brown to blackish brown with grayish sides, more chestnut above. Younger males more red-brown. White mark on the throat, white spots (usually indistinct) on the face and the haunches, little or no trace of transverse or longitudinal stripes. Females dark yellow-brown to reddish, often with distinct traces of stripes and tend to be lighter on the shoulder and the forelegs.
Skulls
Skulls from phaleratus, scriptus and bor are indistinguishable based on the samples from G&G. Skulls from meneliki and decula (the Ethiopian taxa) tend to be significantly smaller than from the members of the "scriptus" group. Skulls of sylvaticus tend to be larger than of the other taxa, significantly compared to meneliki and decula, but are not really distinct from either fasciatus or ornatus. On average sylvaticus, fasciatus and ornatus skulls are slightly larger than of the "scriptus" group, but it is questionable whether that is significant.
Horns
Horn characteristics are quite similar within the "scriptus" group and not larger then for meneliki and decula as is the case for skull characteristics. Horn characteristics are larger for ornatus, fasciatus and sylvaticus compared to the Ethiopian taxa, decula and meneliki, and the "scriptus" group and those differences are possibly significant.
Additional data
In the past 10 years there have been three studies that looked at mitochondrial DNA of bushbuck across Africa (Moodley & Bruford 2007; Moodley et al. 2009; Hassanin et al. 2012) and all three had the same interesting outcome: bushbuck are not monophyletic. Based on Mtdna it appears that the "scriptus" group and the "sylvaticus" group are separate branches, Moodley et al. (2009) show that the "scriptus" group is the sister to the Nyala, whereas the "sylvaticus" group is sister to Sitatunga and Bongo, both groups are well separated in the cladogram and to call them both bushbuck, it would mean calling all Tragelaphine antelopes bushbuck... The genetic analyses indicate monophyly of all taxa described as species by G&G except for fasciatus which is partly embedded within sylvaticus. The sylvaticus of south Africa are put as sister taxa to the meneliki, rather than with the other sylvaticus samples, this is however not the case with the data used in Moodley et al. (2009).
Whereas other authors and the Mtdna samples retain decula within the "scriptus" group, G&G put them in the "sylvaticus" group based on morphology. G&G propose this is a species of hybrid origin.
Summarizing
Based on morphology and Mtdna there seems to be quite solid evidence for the existence of two separate bushbuck species, which was already recognized in grouping them into an "scriptus" and an "sylvaticus" group. Within both groups G&G recognize several other species, which is mainly due to their strict following of the phylogenetic species concept. Based on morphology one could argue that meneliki is sufficiently different from other bushbuck in the "sylvaticus" group to warrant species status, but this is not reflected in the Mtdna data. Based on skulls and horns it is hard to make any further subdivisions within both groups. Differences in pelage exist but I don't think these differences are large enough for anybody who is not an adept of the PSC to merit those differences species rank... The interesting case is however the decula taxon which might be of hybrid origin and where it should thus be placed. Maybe the use of nuclear dna might shed new light on that.
For now it seems likely that we can recognize two bushbuck species:
Tragelaphus (s.) scriptus (Pallas 1766) and Tragelaphus (s.) sylvaticus (Sparrman 1780)
The molecular studies:
Moodley & Bruford 2007: Molecular Biogeography: Towards an Integrated Framework for Conserving Pan-African Biodiversity
Moodley et al. 2009: Analysis of mitochondrial DNA data reveals non-monophyly in the bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) complex (PDF Download Available)
Hassanin et al. 2012:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31800584/1-s2.0-S1631069111002800-main.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1501416997&Signature=xE7IP6EOkHiB5kA5owvPgcr9mnI=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Pattern_and_timing_of_diversification_of.pdf
Next are the remaining Tragelaphine antelopes.
Tragelaphus scriptus scriptus
![]()
@ThylacineAlive Gladys Porter Zoo, USA
![]()
@ThylacineAlive Gladys Porter Zoo, USA
Tragelaphus scriptus bor
![]()
@snowleopard International Wildlife Museum, USA
Tragelaphus sylvaticus sylvaticus
![]()
@Hix, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania
![]()
@Hix, Lake Mburo NP, Uganda
![]()
@Newzooboy Kruger NP, South Africa
Tragelaphus sylvaticus meneliki
![]()
@lintworm Bale Mountains NP, Ethiopia
![]()
@Maguari Bale Mountains NP, Ethiopia
No pictures in the gallery:
Tragelaphus scriptus phaleratus
Tragelaphus sylvaticus decula
Tragelaphus sylvaticus fasciatus
Tragelaphus sylvaticus ornatus