Certainly the taxon stands unquestioned in the never-shy-of-controversy Ungulate Taxonomy (Groves and Grubb) - one of its distinguishing features is the white ears noted above.
Groves and Grubb also suggest that another 'maneless' population currently included in E. q. boehmi might be distinct enough to be a separate subspecies, E. q. isabella.
(and yes, someone did get a nerdy Christmas present..!)
I keep dipping in and out and getting mindblown by it. The breadth of the information is immense, and from what I've read most of it seems very well-reasoned, even when it at first glance seems more-or-less completely mad (as even the blurb makes very clear - it basically reads as 'OK - this is going to sound mad, but let us explain...').
Though - bit odd that that the entry for Dama mesopotamica just refers you to Wikipedia! Is there seriously not a more scholarly document available? I mean, Wikipedia!
I keep dipping in and out and getting mindblown by it. The breadth of the information is immense, and from what I've read most of it seems very well-reasoned, even when it at first glance seems more-or-less completely mad (as even the blurb makes very clear - it basically reads as 'OK - this is going to sound mad, but let us explain...').
Though - bit odd that that the entry for Dama mesopotamica just refers you to Wikipedia! Is there seriously not a more scholarly document available? I mean, Wikipedia!
Yes, the Wikipedia citation is a bit odd for a scholarly book. There is one other Wiki citation I think for Chinese Water Deer. As for D. mesopotamica, there might not be another source with more information.
I just wonder what would happen if he comes out with "Carnivore Taxonomy?"
What an incredibly rude post. I for one thank Nikola for his use of scientific names. He (or she, I'm not certain) is considered one of the best photographers on the site.
At any rate, using the scientific name is far, far better than labeling a photo "Some kinda [sic] deer."
I do apologise for my crass comment about your photo, it was rude and uncalled for so very sorry about that.
My only excuse was that it was posted from bangkok at about 5am, by which time I had been toasting the new year for about 16 hours so definitely PUI.
I do still think that English should be used for labelling photos, but no problem, as I said, including the latin name.
jbndsn99, you will find that my deer photo labelled "Some kinda deer" was labelled that way because I had absolutely no idea what the deer was and I was looking for identification, so not really sure what your point is?
I’ve only seen these maneless zebras in Dvur Kralove; apart from the absence of a mane they look very similar to Grant’s zebra.
As ‘Maguari’ points out, E. q. borensis is listed as a valid subspecies in “Ungulate Taxonomy” (Groves & Grubb); it is worth noting, however, that “Handbook of the Mammals of the World” (Vol 2) does not list this form as a subspecies.
Following on from comments others have made about “Ungulate Taxonomy” I must add that it is now one of my very favourite books and thoroughly recommended.
I’ve only seen these maneless zebras in Dvur Kralove; apart from the absence of a mane they look very similar to Grant’s zebra.
As ‘Maguari’ points out, E. q. borensis is listed as a valid subspecies in “Ungulate Taxonomy” (Groves & Grubb); it is worth noting, however, that “Handbook of the Mammals of the World” (Vol 2) does not list this form as a subspecies.
Following on from comments others have made about “Ungulate Taxonomy” I must add that it is now one of my very favourite books and thoroughly recommended.
The Perissodactyls are one of the only places where G&G consistently use subspecies. HBWM is just weird. They should have either used the traditional taxonomy or the G&G taxonomy, but not a mishmash of both.
Does anyone know how many Equus quagga borensis are in captivity? I've contacted ISIS, but I probably won't recieve a reply for a few days. I'd like to see some of the subspecies in an exhibit representing Al Sud.
