given the low quality of some of the images I'll be adding to this thread in the fullness of time, on account of the fact we have no other alternatives and the taxa in question are pretty unusual, this will be no problem!
The Wolverines at Minnesota should be Eurasian Wolverines, not North AmericanGulo
Wolverine (G. gulo)
The range of this species extends across much of the subarctic and alpine tundra and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere, with the highest concentrations in northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Fennoscandia. In the Old World the species extends south to the Baltic States, northeast China and Mongolia, and in the New World scattered populations extend south into the United States within the Rocky Mountains and Cascades.
Two subspecies are currently recognised, as follows:
G. g. gulo - photo by @Tomek
G. g. luscus - photo by @geomorph
.
The Wolverines at Minnesota should be Eurasian Wolverines, not North American
any pointers as to whereabouts holds North American?
I’m fairly certain that most (if not all) Wolverines in North America are Eurasian. You would probably have to find a photo of a wild specimen.Interesting - I had been under the impression that Minnesota has held the species since *prior* to the recent wave of Eurasian imports
to clarify, do you know for sure that Minnesota holds Eurasian, or is this based on your assumption that all captive wolverines belong to this taxon?
I remember when someone correcting me after I titled my media as “North American Wolverine Exhibit” and stating that they were instead Eurasian, but looking at the comment again, I realize that the person correcting me was not stating that they *were* Eurasian but that they *were likely* Eurasian.There were definitely North American around until recently, as I recall a fair bit of bemusement on Zoochat when the imports from Europe started up
There *are* wild shots in the gallery, as it happens, but not the best of quality.
You can get a pdf via Google Scholar - but it is a Russian paper (only the abstract is in English). The paper is about ferret-badgers in Vietnam and the split given in it appears to be based solely on a 2011 paper by Hosoda et al (pdf linked below) which sampled exactly two ferret-badger specimens (one from Vietnam and one from Taiwan), finding a significant difference between them - described as inter-specific in genetic distance - but the authors obviously cautioned that there needs to be way more sampling done from other mainland locations to confirm if this is real or an artifact of such poor sampling.
Is this from HMW, for Yellow-throated Marten? The distribution is missing the Greater Sundas, and what has happened to the other subspecies like saba (from Borneo)? I thought maybe they'd made a split but you haven't listed one.
as for saba, it appears to be included within peninsularis given the range listed for said subspecies. Similarly, aterrima seems to have been lumped into borealis.
I don't suppose they give any reference for why they lump saba and henrici into peninsularis? Typically Bornean subspecies of small carnivores are now being split as full species rather than lumped into other mainland subspecies, so what they have done here is interesting. (Apart for that, henrici is an older name than peninsularis).The fact the distribution omits the Greater Sundas is an error on my part from when I originally wrote the post which I subsequently didn't catch when editing the post recently
Does Magdeburg hold two subspecies? Because zootierliste didn't specify their subspecies status.