Deer of the New World - a new look at their taxonomy

Chlidonias

Moderator
Staff member
15+ year member
This is a link to the full paper: A gene-tree test of the traditional taxonomy of American deer: the importance of voucher specimens, geographic data, and dense sampling (PDF Download Available)

Abstract:
The taxonomy of American deer has been established almost entirely on the basis of morphological data and without the use of explicit phylogenetic methods; hence, phylogenetic analyses including data for all of the currently recognized species, even if based on a single gene, might improve current understanding of their taxonomy. We tested the monophyly of the morphology-defined genera and species of New World deer (Odocoileini) with phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequences. This is the first such test conducted using extensive geographic and taxonomic sampling. Our results do not support the A peer-reviewed open-access journal Eliécer E. Gutiérrez et al. / ZooKeys 697: 87–131 (2017) 88 monophyly of Mazama, Odocoileus, Pudu, M. americana, M. nemorivaga, Od. hemionus, and Od. virgin-ianus. Mazama contains species that belong to other genera. We found a novel sister-taxon relationship between " Mazama " pandora and a clade formed by Od. hemionus columbianus and Od. h. sitkensis, and transfer pandora to Odocoileus. The clade formed by Od. h. columbianus and Od. h. sitkensis may represent a valid species, whereas the remaining subspecies of Od. hemionus appear closer to Od. virginianus. Pudu (Pudu) puda was not found sister to Pudu (Pudella) mephistophiles. If confirmed, this result will prompt the recognition of the monotypic Pudella as a distinct genus. We provide evidence for the existence of an undescribed species now confused with Mazama americana, and identify other instances of cryptic, taxonomically unrecognized species-level diversity among populations here regarded as Mazama temama, " Mazama " nemorivaga, and Hippocamelus antisensis. Noteworthy records that substantially extend the known distributions of M. temama and " M. " gouazoubira are provided, and we unveil a surprising ambiguity regarding the distribution of " M. " nemorivaga, as it is described in the literature. The study of deer of the tribe Odocoileini has been hampered by the paucity of information regarding voucher specimens and the provenance of sequences deposited in GenBank. We pinpoint priorities for future systematic research on the tribe Odocoileini.



I haven't read through it yet, but it will be interesting. It includes the following observation near the start that the taxonomy of New World deer species is based mostly on morphology:

In general, the scientific community has largely followed the taxonomic arrangements recognized by 20th century authorities, predominantly E. R. Hall for North America (Hall 1981) and A. Cabrera for South America (Cabrera 1961). The uncritical acceptance of these taxonomic arrangements for decades is indefensible because the criteria, data, and methods used to construct them are largely unknown, unclear, or even incorrect (see example pointed out by Molinari [2007, p. 31]).
 
I have not read through it, but a quick look at the abstract in the above post notes that some subspecies of mule deer appear closer to white tailed deer. I have always thought the two species look very much alike and I think a lot of amateurs like myself have a hard time telling them apart. Years ago I visited a small (and bad) zoo in northern Arizona (now closed) that put rescued deer of both species together because Arizona Game and Fish assured them they would not interbreed. They did breed and produce a hybrid fawn. Not sure if this means anything, just throwing it out there.
 
Back
Top