Because THEY are Indochinese Tigers-the genes of the"new subspecies"Malayasian tiger are complete identical with the Indochinese ones-no diffrence between, so its the same subspecies.
It's beyond my comfort level in biology to argue this point, but I would suggest that it seems the majority of the scientific community is at odds with you here.
Groves and Grubb split the mountain zebra subspecies into full species purely on morphological differences, there appears to be no good genetic basis to back this up. Like a lot of their splits...
I can't see any reason for splitting khur other than their love of splitting.
Because THEY are Indochinese Tigers-the genes of the"new subspecies"Malayasian tiger are complete identical with the Indochinese ones-no diffrence between, so its the same subspecies.
I'm confused what you're basing this on; possibly Wilting et al. (2015)? If so, they didn't find that Indochinese and Malayan tigers were genetically identical, although did reject the subspecies split. Either way, their revision is still very far from consensus.
