What I Don't Understand About "Subspecies"

[BerdNerd]

I always had one thing I could never understand about subspecies. No matter what I search on Google, I cannot get a straight answer. So for my question, I'm going to use the Leopard (Panthera pardus) as an example. There are many subspecies of leopards including Amur, African, Indian, Arabian, etc. And each of those subspecies are slightly different. But if they are just subspecies of the leopard, then is there such thing as a "regular" leopard that is not considered a subspecies? Or is there no such thing a a "regular" leopard and all the subspecies represent that one species? If the latter is true, shouldn't all the subspecies just become individual species? Sorry if my question isn't very clear, it's kinda hard to explain.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

I always had one thing I could never understand about subspecies. No matter what I search on Google, I cannot get a straight answer. So for my question, I'm going to use the Leopard (Panthera pardus) as an example. There are many subspecies of leopards including Amur, African, Indian, Arabian, etc. And each of those subspecies are slightly different. But if they are just subspecies of the leopard, then is there such thing as a "regular" leopard that is not considered a subspecies? Or is there no such thing a a "regular" leopard and all the subspecies represent that one species? If the latter is true, shouldn't all the subspecies just become individual species? Sorry if my question isn't very clear, it's kinda hard to explain.

Well the "regular form" the so called nominat form, is in general is the first scientificly discribed subspecies. They can be quite easy identefied with the name. The subspecies name of the nominat form is the same as the species. In the case of the leopard is the "regular" form the african leopard (Panthera pardus pardus). The other subspecies like the amur or the persian leopard are seperate populations of the same species, but distinct enough to be clearly identefied. And if you ask if that system is flawed, yes it is. With gentic studies we can clearly identefy the true relationships of the population,(with the general trend that many sub species are not accepted anymore) and even if they should be seen as there own species (like the Sunda clouded leopard who was seen as a sub species of the clouded leopard)

 

[Echobeast]

Subspecies is a debated topic among biologists to put it lightly as there is no clear definition of what makes a subspecies different than a species. Same with species as there is no clear definition for that either. Basically, if a species is divided into subspecies, it means that there is geographic or genetic differences between those populations enough to where biologists agree that they should be their own subspecies. A lot of the time, individuals in zoos or collections are identified to the species level as hybridization and small differences between subspecies make it difficult to distinguish them. It is more useful when looking at wild populations or conservation breeding programs. Cladistically, all members of a subspecies are the same species so it isn't wrong to call them all that species and avoid the subspecies distinction all together.

 

[amur leopard]

I always had one thing I could never understand about subspecies. No matter what I search on Google, I cannot get a straight answer. So for my question, I'm going to use the Leopard (Panthera pardus) as an example. There are many subspecies of leopards including Amur, African, Indian, Arabian, etc. And each of those subspecies are slightly different. But if they are just subspecies of the leopard, then is there such thing as a "regular" leopard that is not considered a subspecies? Or is there no such thing a a "regular" leopard and all the subspecies represent that one species? If the latter is true, shouldn't all the subspecies just become individual species? Sorry if my question isn't very clear, it's kinda hard to explain.

Just to hopefully add to what others have said, in theory, the subspecies system evenly splits all the individuals of a certain species into separate entities so that none are left over. However, the system is of course flawed - there are issues with different populations being assigned similar names or vice versa, subspecies ranges overlapping, hybrids, so on.

The ‘regular’ léopards of which you speak are called generic leopards, which means they are hybrids (also occasionally called zoomix leopards).

Just to use your example of the leopards then, there are so many different described subspecies with different, often completely overlapping ranges (North Persian, Indochinese, Javan, Amur, North Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan, Caucasian, African, Cape, Zanzibar, West African, Persian... the list goes on). However, there is now a generally accepted list of leopard subspecies and while debates still go on and on (especially about the tiger and lion subspecies) it works as a rough system.

However, in zoos you often tend to get zoomix animals, especially in the case of tigers. Hope this helps

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Just to hopefully add to what others have said, in theory, the subspecies system evenly splits all the individuals of a certain species into separate entities so that none are left over. However, the system is of course flawed - there are issues with different populations being assigned similar names or vice versa, subspecies ranges overlapping, hybrids, so on.

The ‘regular’ léopards of which you speak are called generic leopards, which means they are hybrids (also occasionally called zoomix leopards).

the "Zoomix" leopard woudn'T be the "regular" leopard. The nominat form is in general the first discribed subspecies. Who can be quite easy discribed with the fact that their sub species name is identical to the species n mae. In the case of the leopard would it be the african leopard (Panthera pardus pardus).

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

However, the first named, or nominate subspecies (P. p. pardus in the case of the Leopard) does not have to be “typical” in any biological way, it is merely the earliest named subspecies, and so, if the species were split taxonomically into separate species, the new species containing P. p. pardus would be the new Panthera pardus, and the other species would take the new names. No such rules apply to common names.

 

[amur leopard]

the "Zoomix" leopard woudn'T be the "regular" leopard. The nominat form is in general the first discribed subspecies. Who can be quite easy discribed with the fact that their sub species name is identical to the species n mae. In the case of the leopard would it be the african leopard (Panthera pardus pardus).

I don’t think that is what @EternalPigeon means. I think he is thinking more along the lines of a subspecies or a grouping that just receives all the leopards not classed into subspecies.
I know what the nominate subspecies is but I don’t think that is what he is referring to. An African leopard is by no means the average leopard, nor is a Bengal tiger. In a sense, the nominate isn’t more important than the others, really.

 

[Valentinoamor]

the "Zoomix" leopard woudn'T be the "regular" leopard. The nominat form is in general the first discribed subspecies. Who can be quite easy discribed with the fact that their sub species name is identical to the species n mae. In the case of the leopard would it be the african leopard (Panthera pardus pardus).

I agree with this statement. "Zoomix" animals aren't as common as they used to be, but can still be seen in collections. Many zoos in the United States exhibit, simply, "giraffes." I've also seen mixed giraffes labeled as "reticulated."

Another example of a "zoomix" would be hybrid orangutans. If you look at the "North America Orangutan Population" thread I created, you can see how many Sumatran x Bornean orangutan hybrids were bred before they identified them as two separate entities.

The African Leopard - or the "regular" leopard - would not be the same as a "zoomix" leopard, as its species is known. Now a North Persian x Amur x Indochinese individual would be considered a "zoomix."

 

[amur leopard]

The African Leopard - or the "regular" leopard - would not be the same as a "zoomix" leopard, as its species is known. Now a North Persian x Amur x Indochinese individual would be considered a "zoomix."

Why is the African leopard the 'regular' leopard?
Just because it is the nominate subspecies and the subspecies most frequently seen in the wild, doesn't mean it is the regular form...
In zoos, the situation is quite the opposite in fact.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Why is the African leopard the 'regular' leopard?
Just because it is the nominate subspecies and the subspecies most frequently seen in the wild, doesn't mean it is the regular form...
In zoos, the situation is quite the opposite in fact.

You have to base your systematic on a base. The nominant form is this base. Imagen you were the first person discribing the leopard. In this case the african leopard. You would see this is a new species. You later discover a second sub species, like the persian leopard. You would discribe it as a leopard. How would you be able to discribe it as a leopard ? With the refernce of the first discribed form (nominant form).

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

I don’t think that is what @EternalPigeon means. I think he is thinking more along the lines of a subspecies or a grouping that just receives all the leopards not classed into subspecies.
I know what the nominate subspecies is but I don’t think that is what he is referring to. An African leopard is by no means the average leopard, nor is a Bengal tiger. In a sense, the nominate isn’t more important than the others, really.

Average is not s term that can be used in the context. What I mean is that the nominant form is the context on which your classefy other subspecies. The Anur/Persian/Sri Lanka leopards are leopards, since they are like the african leopard. Which is what the nominant form discribed

 

[Valentinoamor]

Why is the African leopard the 'regular' leopard?
Just because it is the nominate subspecies and the subspecies most frequently seen in the wild, doesn't mean it is the regular form...
In zoos, the situation is quite the opposite in fact.

I only called it the "regular" leopard because everyone above had been. Nominate subspecies tend to be the "base animal" for the species.

 

[MRJ]

When a species is first described and named, scientists use one specimen, known as the type specimen, from which they write up the characteristics of the species. The location from which the specimen was collected would be known. From this populations that show differences from the population the type specimen came from can be described as subspecies. Sometimes scientists use terms such as race, ecotype or cline to describe differences between populations that are not considered significant enough to be regarded as subspecies.

Because the selection of of the type specimen is a random event, the nominate subspecies cannot in any way be regarded as "regular", "typical" or "average". It's population was just the first population to be described.

 

[AWP]

It's population was just the first population to be described.

Many holarctic taxa are a good example. If you look at brown bear, grey wolf, red fox, wolverine, lynx, red deer, moose, reindeer or wild boar for example, the nominate subspecies is the subspecies that is native to Sweden, the country of Carl Linnaeus, the founding father of this form of systematics. They were just the first subspecies to be described. Had an American, Italian, Russian or Chinese started this form of taxonomy, the nominate subspecies of aforementioned taxa would be that of that particulair region.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I agree with this statement. "Zoomix" animals aren't as common as they used to be, but can still be seen in collections. Many zoos in the United States exhibit, simply, "giraffes." I've also seen mixed giraffes labeled as "reticulated."

Another example of a "zoomix" would be hybrid orangutans. If you look at the "North America Orangutan Population" thread I created, you can see how many Sumatran x Bornean orangutan hybrids were bred before they identified them as two separate entities.

The African Leopard - or the "regular" leopard - would not be the same as a "zoomix" leopard, as its species is known. Now a North Persian x Amur x Indochinese individual would be considered a "zoomix."

They are most definitely common South of the border in Mexico where there are many hybrid animals in zoos such as orangutangs, tigers, leopards, giraffes and I suppose others too.

 

[Dassie rat]

Does it really matter if mammals that are not part of a reintroduction programme are represented by hybrids, rather than pure subspecies? As has been discussed several times here, many visitors want to see certain species, rather than subspecies.

Is it really important to keep subspecies when several orders of vertebrates are not kept in zoos or aquaria? I bet that some phyla have never been exhibited in zoos.

 

[Valentinoamor]

They are most definitely common South of the border in Mexico where there are many hybrid animals in zoos such as orangutangs, tigers, leopards, giraffes and I suppose others too.

That is true. I was just using the United States as a reference.

Does it really matter if mammals that are not part of a reintroduction programme are represented by hybrids, rather than pure subspecies? As has been discussed several times here, many visitors want to see certain species, rather than subspecies.

Is it really important to keep subspecies when several orders of vertebrates are not kept in zoos or aquaria? I bet that some phyla have never been exhibited in zoos.

Nearly all animals held in captivity by accredited facilities serve as a captive backbone for their wild counterparts. For example, if all wild Amur Tigers dropped dead, the individuals held in captivity - which are strategically paired to create the healthiest genepool possible - would be introduced into the wild over time.

 

[Dassie rat]

Hello EsserWarrior

I did say about mammals being part of a reintroduction programme, rather than all captive mammals.

There are 450 to a little over 500 Amur tigers in the wild. 186 ZTL zoos have captive Amur tigers with about 287 in the European breeding programme. As far as I know, none of these are part of a reintroduction programme, which would be very difficult, expensive and controversial. Captive tigers associate people with food and could be more likely to attack people and livestock rather than wild prey. As habitat is being destroyed, surely Amur tigers and their natural habitats should be conserved in situ. There are enough tigers in zoos for keepers and other staff to study tigers and apply their knowledge towards their welfare.