Tiger Systematics

oh wow, many perhaps that the Caspian and siberian's came into very close contact at one stage?
 
It might not have been just limited to very close contact at one stage; rather, they might have been two (intermingling) populations of one subspecies.
Therebye, we are possibly not watching 'Amur', but 'Caspian' (as the term is older) tigers in zoos nowadays...;)
 
Last edited:
The 'nearly' Tigers

Extremely interesting article, thanks for highlighting/posting it. What they are suggesting is that the DNA sequencing indicates Amur and Caspian had the same recent ancestry and that the two races branched out in Eastward and Westward directions and then later their ranges became discontinuous from each other. Also that the two are very closely related, far more so than other tigers are.

So Caspians were 'nearly' Amurs and vice versa. The very few photos of Caspian tigers dead or alive(of which possibly only one live specimen- in Berlin Zoo- is the genuine article) do all show a thickly-furred stocky- looking tiger, very similar in appearance to the Amur/Siberian, which is what one would expect from a Central Asian inhabitant.

There are still different opinions on when the Caspian became extinct (here it says 1970 but I've also heard even more recent dates cited) or even whether it really is so, even to this day.
 
@Pertinax: My pleasure. The data could indicate that what we thought were two subspecies might actually be just (a more or less mixed) one-which is indeed also interesting in regard to possible future reintroduction plans (IF that is ever going to happen...).

So maybe we could think now about a new name for the "Siberian/Amur" tiger; let me be first to suggest "Russian Tiger"(Putin would LOVE that one...)-or, to avoid diplomatic quarrel, "Central Asian Tiger".
lol
 
Strange thing is that visually, Caspian tiger was pretty different - smaller and more striped - than Siberian.

I am very sceptical to distinguishing species and subspecies only on genetic grounds, with no regards to exterior and ecology. All tiger subspecies are pretty closely related, but ecologically they are unreplaceable - tropical tigers wouldn't survive Siberian winter and vice versa.
 
Sun Wukong said:
@Pertinax: My pleasure. The data could indicate that what we thought were two subspecies might actually be just (a more or less mixed) one-which is indeed also interesting in regard to possible future reintroduction plans (IF that is ever going to happen...).

So maybe we could think now about a new name for the "Siberian/Amur" tiger; let me be first to suggest "Russian Tiger"(Putin would LOVE that one...)-or, to avoid diplomatic quarrel, "Central Asian Tiger".
lol
Click to expand...

Seems like the same science that recently told us the bad news that Barbary lions in zoos aren't in fact from North Africa, is now telling us that Caspian & Amur tigers were very closely related which could be good news for any future reintroductions(with a big IF of course)
 
Jurek7 said:
Strange thing is that visually, Caspian tiger was pretty different - smaller and more striped - than Siberian.
Click to expand...

But how much smaller? They are bound to have developed their own racial characteristics but the two or three very grainy old photos of genuine Caspians after they had been shot indicate they resembled Amur tiger more than any other tiger subspecies.

The Berlin photo shows a tiger with a blocky body, shaggy fur on the belly a comparatively thin tail and a rather lynx-like ruff round the face. Colour perhaps darker than the Amur but its a b/w photo so difficult to tell.
 
From what I saw in the that article, the two subspecies might be closely related, but they are still different enough to be considered different subspecies. And regards to the time of extinction of the the Caspian Tiger, I've heard rumours of soldiers in Afghanistan sighting both lions and tigers in the mountains.

:)

Hix
 
Although I agree with Jurek7 that genetics might not say a lot about the individual habitat adaption of the different subspecies, I'd be careful to use just phaenotypical characteristics as crucial criteria. Remember all those "species" that were described by early scientists/naturalists that turned out to be more or less irregular specimens of the same species (or, like eclectus parrots, just of different gender)? Or think about the high variety of colour and pattern morphs within a single species, for example, Dendrobates auratus.


About the characteristics of Caspian tigers:
-Third largest tiger subspecies (overall body length 240-290 cm, weight 90-220kg)
-light coloured striping
-dense fur with a belly and a nap mane

Contemporary observers stated a clear difference from the other subspecies; yet some of today's tigers display similar characteristics.
http://www.tiergarten.com/fotos/thumbs/52187.jpg
Due to neglect of subspecies seperation in the past and thus rather 'wild' breeding, quite a bunch of the tigers (especially Amur) kept in zoos might not be "pure", subspecies-wise, and therefore differ from their wild conspecifics...

The article states that Caspian and Amur-tigers seemed to have intermingled in several places of their distribution even until recent times. The segue population appears to have been wiped out by humans; therefore, it is not clear whether they were/are really 100% different subspecies, or just slightly different local forms of the same subspecies. Personally, I'm looking forward to the future results involving the other subspecies.

@Hix: Although I haven't given hope all hope on surviving Caspian tiger, I'm unsure whether most sightings by soldiers are valid. Like the greatest part of modern society, most soldiers aren't skilled in animal identification, which might result in exaggerated misinterpretations of unfamiliar species (see ABCs, Người Rừng...).
 
Sun Wukong said:
@Hix: Although I haven't given hope all hope on surviving Caspian tiger, I'm unsure whether most sightings by soldiers are valid. Like the greatest part of modern society, most soldiers aren't skilled in animal identification, which might result in exaggerated misinterpretations of unfamiliar species (see ABCs, Người Rừng...).
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. However, I was just reporting the rumours, not discussing their validity.

AS for molecular data and species distinctions: I learned tonight from one of Australia's prominent herpetologists that a paper had just been published where the DNA of the elebven different species of Pogona were compared. Pogona includes a variety of different subspecies of dsragon (lizard) that can be distinguished by size, shape, morphometrics and various other phenotypic characteristics. But the DNA analysis said that these eleven different species were all genetically identical, and were just one species.

:)

Hix
 
First they spread East, then they spread NorthWest...

Just been rereading parts of these articles.

It seems they spread Westward first into Central Asia, then Eastwards into Siberia etc. So the present day Siberian tiger is, as well as being closely related to the Caspian, more recent and apparently descended from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top