The Malayan Tiger (P. t. jacksoni) was split from the Indochinese Tiger (P. t. corbetti). It's still not universally accepted - the Berlin zoos I think are among those insisting their tigers are corbetti, even though given their geographical source the zoo population should all be known as jacksoni now.
Wow, really confusing. I wonder why some people reject it whilst others accept it? Is there not any conclusive scientific proof? (differing genetics seems to be the deciding factor).
It all depends. If a split is based on one study, there may be disputes about the methodology or the reliability of the work. Sometimes things are disputed because morphology (physical characteristics) don't follow the same pattern as genetics. It's important to remember than science isn't about proof but disproof. In science, you support the idea that something is happening, but you can only ever prove that it is not. This is not always easy to apply to taxonomy and sytematics!
