Don't know if this has been posted but I found footage of Kouprey from 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYwnjqHr6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYwnjqHr6k
Kouprey Footage
- Thread starter savethelephant
- Start date
Whoops sorry about that!
I meant footage uploaded in 2010
I meant footage uploaded in 2010
Isn't this the same footage of Kouprey that's always been around?
I've personally have never seen this before, whether on zoochat or anywhere else
yep, it has just been copied from ARKive (of course, because it has their logo in the corner).
It is well-known but still cool if you haven't seen it before though, as with savethelephant.
I remember seeing it for the first time several years ago and thinking it was pretty awesome. Though re-watching today it felt... haunting. I guess that is an appropriate way to describe it.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Had to bump the ride: the whole kouprey saga was a hoax.
Link: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2006/09/kouprey.html
The latter evidence is and was compelling.
Link: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2006/09/kouprey.html
The latter evidence is and was compelling.
there's nothing "hoax" about Kouprey. Even if they were deemed not to be a true species, it still isn't a hoax!
In any case, there is plenty of opposing data and opinion to that of the 2006 article you link to. Just a quick example, as illustration, being this quote from the IUCN Red List:
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
As someone who knows a thing or two about Kouprey, let me clarify what happened.
The initial study from 2006 had a limited sample. Only mainland Banteng were tested against the Kouprey sample. The result was that mainland Banteng and Kouprey were very similar genetically.
The follow up study, done with some of the same authors, in 2007 widened the sample size to include Javan and Bornean Banteng. The result was that the Sunda Banteng were very different from the mainland. The final conclusion was that mainland Banteng were the hybrids (Banteng x Kouprey).
So the result was that the Kouprey was a very real species with a fossil record. Mainland Banteng carry some of their genes but not Sunda Banteng. Banteng could have been a strictly Sunda species that migrated north during the glacial periods and mixed with the savanna dwelling Kouprey.
The initial study from 2006 had a limited sample. Only mainland Banteng were tested against the Kouprey sample. The result was that mainland Banteng and Kouprey were very similar genetically.
The follow up study, done with some of the same authors, in 2007 widened the sample size to include Javan and Bornean Banteng. The result was that the Sunda Banteng were very different from the mainland. The final conclusion was that mainland Banteng were the hybrids (Banteng x Kouprey).
So the result was that the Kouprey was a very real species with a fossil record. Mainland Banteng carry some of their genes but not Sunda Banteng. Banteng could have been a strictly Sunda species that migrated north during the glacial periods and mixed with the savanna dwelling Kouprey.
Perhaps, I was a little too hasty. Here is the current clarification and understanding of the relationship between Cambodian banteng - kouprey and other bovids (Resolving a zoological mystery: the kouprey is a real species
Alexandre Hassanin, Anne Ropiquet, Published 22 November 2007.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0830.
Link: Resolving a zoological mystery: the kouprey is a real species | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
The critical passage I would like to cite here: QOUTE "We suggested, however, that Galbreath et al. (2006) misinterpreted the DNA data (Hassanin & Ropiquet 2007; see also Grigson 2007; Hedges et al. 2007). In the mitochondrial tree, here constructed with three different markers (Cytb, CO2 and D-loop; figure 1), Cambodian banteng are indeed found to be closely related to the kouprey (mean distance: 1.4%) and more distant to gaur (5.0%), but they are unexpectedly found to be highly divergent from Javan banteng (5.4%). Particularly relevant is the presence of a large insertion in the mitochondrial D-loop of Javan banteng (176 nt), which is not found in Cambodian banteng. Two conflicting hypotheses can therefore be proposed to interpret the mitochondrial data (figure 2). The first hypothesis assumes that the Cambodian and Javan banteng belong to two distinct species, and that the kouprey diverged morphologically from the former owing to hybridization with another species needing to be identified. This hypothesis is compatible with the conclusions of Galbreath et al. (2006) if we accept that the hybridization of banteng occurred with zebu. The second hypothesis recognizes the kouprey as a valid species, and implies the existence of a mitochondrial introgression event, in which the mitochondrial genome of kouprey was transferred into the ancestor of Cambodian banteng by natural hybridization. Both hypotheses are supported by the fact that viable and potentially fertile hybrids have been produced in captivity between various species of the genus Bos (Van Gelder 1977)." UNQUOTE.
Alexandre Hassanin, Anne Ropiquet, Published 22 November 2007.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0830.
Link: Resolving a zoological mystery: the kouprey is a real species | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
The critical passage I would like to cite here: QOUTE "We suggested, however, that Galbreath et al. (2006) misinterpreted the DNA data (Hassanin & Ropiquet 2007; see also Grigson 2007; Hedges et al. 2007). In the mitochondrial tree, here constructed with three different markers (Cytb, CO2 and D-loop; figure 1), Cambodian banteng are indeed found to be closely related to the kouprey (mean distance: 1.4%) and more distant to gaur (5.0%), but they are unexpectedly found to be highly divergent from Javan banteng (5.4%). Particularly relevant is the presence of a large insertion in the mitochondrial D-loop of Javan banteng (176 nt), which is not found in Cambodian banteng. Two conflicting hypotheses can therefore be proposed to interpret the mitochondrial data (figure 2). The first hypothesis assumes that the Cambodian and Javan banteng belong to two distinct species, and that the kouprey diverged morphologically from the former owing to hybridization with another species needing to be identified. This hypothesis is compatible with the conclusions of Galbreath et al. (2006) if we accept that the hybridization of banteng occurred with zebu. The second hypothesis recognizes the kouprey as a valid species, and implies the existence of a mitochondrial introgression event, in which the mitochondrial genome of kouprey was transferred into the ancestor of Cambodian banteng by natural hybridization. Both hypotheses are supported by the fact that viable and potentially fertile hybrids have been produced in captivity between various species of the genus Bos (Van Gelder 1977)." UNQUOTE.
Some information about the Kouprey :
The kouprey: Does Cambodia’s national mammal and cultural symbol even exist anymore?
The kouprey: Does Cambodia’s national mammal and cultural symbol even exist anymore?
Despite some extensive search parties, no confirmed sights from the 80's.
Here's the documentary this footage is used in
The wild cattle of Cambodia
Does anyone have the footage of the Paris specimen by any chance?
The wild cattle of Cambodia
Does anyone have the footage of the Paris specimen by any chance?