The BSC in its extreme is still taught in schools as the only definition, and the universal definition, of a species. I've been taught that if two animals can breed and produce fertile offspring in any circumstances then they are the same species.
New Orangutan Species Discovered
- Thread starter Ned
- Start date
The BSC in its extreme is still taught in schools as the only definition, and the universal definition, of a species. I've been taught that if two animals can breed and produce fertile offspring in any circumstances then they are the same species.
The same for me 10 years ago, I would have hoped they would update such things... But then you come to university and in the first evolution classes you learn there are about 3 major species concepts and then you do Biosystematics and then at once there are over 25
He's obviously ignorant of how modern zoo breeding programmes for Orangutan work. Its completely the opposite of this.
As far as whether this really is a new species of Orangutan, I suppose to an extent it depends whether you accept Bornean and Sumatran orangs are really two seperate species in the first place, as opposed to just subspecies.. as they were formerly classified. In which case a third species is also possible. But for me, it doesn't sound right. Isolated population or perhaps subspecies more like, though I would think the former.
Last edited:
Thisis clearly rubbish, as it would eliminate many species of deer, pheasants, waterfowl, parrots, lions and tigers. And that's only the species I know a little bit about.
Yes, it's clearly awful. It would be madness to suggest lumping lions and tigers. It's terrible that this is taught in sixth form biology lessons with no mention of there being any other definition of a species or anything.
You're complaining about it being rubbish, but I have to write it down as if it's the correct definition in tests etc! (of course I write down the 'correct' definition that I'm expected to and then write a small paragraph at the bottom of the page about why it's rubbish because that's the kind of annoying student I am
)
An article relevant to both the "new" orangutan and the species splitting issue:
The tricky business of defining new species
The tricky business of defining new species
One thing that (surprisingly, to me at least) was missed out from the press releases of the IUCN Red List update from earlier in December was the recognition of the Tapanuli orangutan as a distinct species. As can be expected, it was immediately listed as Critically Endangered. The page about the Tapanuli orangutan is included below:
Pongo tapanuliensis (Tapanuli Orangutan)
Interesting to note that, under the 'Range Description' section there is a throwaway reference to a captive Tapanuli orangutan being confiscated in the Lumut region of Sumatra in 2008. No further mention is made of what happened to the animal in question.
Pongo tapanuliensis (Tapanuli Orangutan)
Interesting to note that, under the 'Range Description' section there is a throwaway reference to a captive Tapanuli orangutan being confiscated in the Lumut region of Sumatra in 2008. No further mention is made of what happened to the animal in question.
They could. Sadly, local and national government policy is encouraging Chinese-sponsored infrastructure development.
Unbelievable 
Apparently the population was "discovered" in 1939 and then "rediscovered" in 1997, so it's possible that their relative isolation prevented them from being collected... in which case, all captive orangutans from Sumatra are indeed P. abelii. But without genetic testing (and probably even then), I think it would be hard to say for sure.
If you look at IUCN, they say all orangutans from Sumatra are P. abelli, except for one P. tapanuliensis.
Captivity wise, that is.
Do you know where exactly it says this? The only thing I could find that sounds similar is that a captive P. tapanuliensis was confiscated in Indonesia about a decade ago.
That's what I was referring to. This individual is alive in captivity. I don't know where.
It very clearly does not say that.
You don't know that either, because all you're going off is "In 2008, a captive Tapanuli Orangutan was confiscated in Lumut."
That's not all I was going off of. I remember reading an article somewhere (don't remember where) that stated this. I also remember another ZooChatter say both the things I have stated about it.
Conservation Station
Member
I was able to have an interesting conversation with the Sumatran orangutan keeper at the Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, in Indiana, United States, the other day. She has been the orangutan keeper for the past 16 years and is very knowledge on the topic. I asked her if she thought the Tapanuli would ever be held in captivity in the U.S. She explained her viewpoint in detail. She said that she doesn't see them ever being held in captivity, especially in the U.S. She said that the only North American zoos to currently house wild-born orangutans are the Toronto Zoo and the name of an American institution that I don't recall, as this was a week ago. There is only one wild-born individual at each location. She said with diminishing numbers and a small range, there is little to no likelihood that they will be kept in U.S. zoological parks. I brought up the point that some people would like to create an insurance population in captivity. The keeper claimed that with roughly 800 individuals left, this would be hard to accomplish. I just thought this was an interesting bit to share coming from an orangutan keeper that has been doing her job for 16 years and a successful birth on her and the orangutans' resume.
Best regards, C.S.
Best regards, C.S.