There are a few species in eastern Asia. The bear cuscus from Sulawesi is being kept in a few zoos now.
Zoological inaccuracies & mistakes
- Thread starter Elephas Maximus
- Start date
Actually marsupials are only found in the Australasian realm and not the Indomalaya realm so from a scientific viewpoint not Asian species. Of course from a political viewpoint they certainly are.
I remember a zookeeper saying the same thing. If you're correct, then various primates and other Sulawesi placentals are Australasian.
One of my favourite zoological fumbles:
This is a publicity pamphlet for the 1991 release of tuatara postage stamps in New Zealand, raising money for WWF (The Worldwide Fund For Nature). The stamps themselves did show actual Tuatara!
This is a publicity pamphlet for the 1991 release of tuatara postage stamps in New Zealand, raising money for WWF (The Worldwide Fund For Nature). The stamps themselves did show actual Tuatara!
Did Joni Mitchell sing in New Zealand?
I know, doesn't make sense. Partly it is because today more emphasis is placed on flora than fauna in defining biogeographic regions.
Wallace's Line runs to the west of Sulawesi and Wallace was the first to place Sulawesi in the Australasian zoogeographic zone. Wallace knew what he was talking about and in so much as zoogeographic zones are used today his divisions are still accepted.
I'm an admirer of Wallace's work, but I still feel that the marsupial fauna on Sulawesi cannot be considered to be Australasian, while the macaques are considered to be Asian.
Consider the following:
- There is no such thing as an "Asian" biogeographic realm. Asia is divided between the Afrotropic, Palearctic, Indomalaya and Australasia realms.
- About half of the mammal species of Australia are "Asian placentals", ie rats and bats. Rats arrived in Australia on two occasions. The first ie oldest evolved from what would have been a small group of rat-ancestors clinging to a raft of vegetation into an incredibly diverse array of over 60 species. The more recent arrival has evolved over a much shorter time into 5 typical rat species.
- Sulawesi has never been connected to Asia, nor for that matter has it ever been connected to Australia by a land bridge. For a considerable length of time it probably never had any mammals at all.
- Sulawesi does not have a typical Asian mammal fauna. There are and have never been any apes, leaf-monkeys, lorises, cats, dogs, weasels, otters, deer, mouse-deer, serow, pangolins, elephants, rhinoceros, tapir, rabbits or treeshrews. It also has only one civet, an endemic.
- As far as I can ascertain all the mammals of Sulawesi are endemic except for bats and even there most are endemic. I may have missed a rat or two.
- Given the above mammals must have arrived much like rats arrived in Australia, very small numbers who by good fortune were swept ashore, probably when sea levels were much lower and so distances between islands much shorter. So:
- A macaque-ancestor evolved into the six endemic macaque species found in Sulawesi noted for being the only "black" macaques.
- A buffalo-ancestor evolved into the anoas.
- A pig-ancestor evolved into the babirusas.
- A squirrel-ancestor evolved into the eight species belonging to three endemic genera found in Sulawesi.
- And so on. Of course like Australia there may have been more than one arrival for each group.
- The cuscuses would of course had also been an accidental introduction but from the east rather than from the west.
- Wallace would have looked beyond these accidental introductions to the birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates to place it in the Australasian realm.
Thanks MRJ
Would it be better if Sulawesi were classified as a separate zoogeographic region? I have looked through various maps. Sulawesi is east of Wallace's Line, but is included in the Indo-Malayan or Oriental zone and not the Australian zone. Therefore there are Oriental or Indo-Malayan marsupials.
Would it be better if Sulawesi were classified as a separate zoogeographic region? I have looked through various maps. Sulawesi is east of Wallace's Line, but is included in the Indo-Malayan or Oriental zone and not the Australian zone. Therefore there are Oriental or Indo-Malayan marsupials.
I have seen maps with Sulawesi in the Indomalaya realm (Wikipedia has different maps on the Australasian and the Indomalaya page} but most of my references place it in Australasia. For myself I'll be sticking with Wallace. It is a strange and unique place, for sure.
Sorry can't help you there. Never seen a book on Australasian wildlife.
If it hadn’t been for COVID I’d have been in Sulawesi last month. For me, it’s more Oriental than Australasian, but , as humans we always want boundary lines rather than blurred intermediates!
A few years ago I saw a YouTube video that was titled something along the lines of, "Top 10 Most Dangerous Animals". One of the animals included in the list was, I think, the, "cigarette snail" (probably the geography cone). But while the captions explained why that snail species is dangerous, the footage that accompanied them showed a plain old garden snail.
Theres loads of 'clickbait' YouTube videos with incorrect information.
For example this abomination.
In the first Zoo Tycoon game, the "harbor porpoise" model actually looks like a Dall's porpoise.
I wonder if there would be much demand for a nature series on YouTube. I've thought about doing one on Texas wildlife.
There isn't much demand but any good content will get you a small following.
Heres an example of an exceptional wildlife channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvwJuCk2KMzvjmrKhlVZ9A
SpinyLiving
Well-Known Member
Here's another one, made by a ZooChat member you all definitely know. I won't share his name, but try to guess who it is.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRjGLXWw-P5PGzE7XACguA/featured