online newsletter for small cats

Let's continue with the new IUCN taxonomy and talk about leopard cats. Traditionally there was one species, Prionailurus bengalensis, and a separate species (not considered a leopard cat) called the Iriomote cat Prionailurus iriomotensis. A few years ago the latter was reclassified as a subspecies of leopard cat (P.b. iriometensis). The new suggested classification lists two distinct species of leopard cat, but Iriomote cat is not one of them. Even more surprising (at least to me) is the suggestion that the Iriomote cat was "probably introduced by humans." The two new species are separated into mainland and Sunda islands, just like the two new subspecies of tiger.

We have Prionailurus bengalensis for the mainland form, with two subspecies. In the northeast we have P.b. euptilurus and in a huge swath of the south (from east to west) we have P.b. bengalensis. The Iriomote cat's range is physically closer to the bengalensis race but is classified as the euptilurus race (with a note that more research is required).

We have Prionailurus javanensis as a new species for the Sunda islands form, with two subspecies. On the island of Java we have P.j. javanensis. On the islands of Sumatra, Borneo, Palawan, Negros, Cebu, Panay we have P.j. sumatranus. Discussion states that of the Philippine Islands (the last four on my list), only Palawan are likely native with the other three likely introduced by humans.
 
Arizona Docent said:
On the islands of Sumatra, Borneo, Palawan, Negros, Cebu, Panay we have P.j. sumatranus. Discussion states that of the Philippine Islands (the last four on my list), only Palawan are likely native with the other three likely introduced by humans.
Click to expand...

If this is what the main body of the text states, the tables you have provided actually contradict the discussion :p given the fact that heaneyi - stated in the table as probably introduced - is the subspecies found on Palawan whilst rabori - which has no such annotation - is found on the other Philippine islands.
 
Good eyes TLD. Here is what the body of the text says.
"It is possible that leopard cats from the Philippines are the result of human introductions, although it is more likely that those from Palawan are indigenous, having colonised from Borneo during glaciations when sea levels were lower."
 
I have to say that a glaring error like that - in addition to what seems to be an ongoing bias towards avoiding splitting taxa into different species/subspecies if they are found on the mainland - doesn't fill me with confidence regarding how accurate these findings are :p
 
There is also a conflict between the taxonomy chart I posted and the range map (which I did not post). In the chart, iriometensis is listed in yellow as a possible subspecies, but in the range map it is not listed and Iriomote and Ryukyu islands are color coded the same as euptilurus.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about the mistake in heaneyi vs rabori on the chart - it's just a mistake.

The leopard cat split into mainland and Sunda species is sensible (and expected), however it is odd them considering the Bornean and Sumatran forms to be the same subspecies given how many species are now split as either subspecies or full species between these two islands based on genetic evidence, which suggests that even during the glacial periods of maximum land-mass there was some sort of separation effect between the two areas.

I don't understand their claim that the Iriomote cat was "probably introduced by humans". I've never seen this anywhere else. They really are extremely distinctive physically compared to other leopard cats. Presumably it is based on genetic relatedness to mainland leopard cats, however this paper (albeit from 20 years ago, and using mtDNA) gives a divergence of mainland vs Iriomote cats as 200,000 years ago: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2108/zsj.12.655
 
Here is what the body of the text says:

"However, recent molecular studies have clearly demonstrated that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat, and its skull morphology confirms this (A. Kitchener, pers. obs.; contra Leyhausen & Pfleiderer 1999), who considered its skull morphology unique and hence the taxon to be recognised as a distinct species. The pelage coloration is similar to that of leopard cats from northern China and this form has almost certainly arisen from a human introduction. Molecular studies confirm that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat (Masuda et al. 1994, Masuda & Yoshida 1995, Suzuki et al. 1995), although estimated divergence vary from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."
 
Arizona Docent said:
Here is what the body of the text says:

"However, recent molecular studies have clearly demonstrated that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat, and its skull morphology confirms this (A. Kitchener, pers. obs.; contra Leyhausen & Pfleiderer 1999), who considered its skull morphology unique and hence the taxon to be recognised as a distinct species. The pelage coloration is similar to that of leopard cats from northern China and this form has almost certainly arisen from a human introduction. Molecular studies confirm that P. iriomotensis is a leopard cat (Masuda et al. 1994, Masuda & Yoshida 1995, Suzuki et al. 1995), although estimated divergence vary from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I don't understand how a human introduction to Iriomote can be reconciled with a divergence of even their lower range of 100,000 years...
 
Chlidonias said:
I'm afraid I don't understand how a human introduction to Iriomote can be reconciled with a divergence of even their lower range of 100,000 years...
Click to expand...

You'd pretty much have to be claiming that Homo erectus and Homo "altai" were not only seafarers, but cat lovers too :p
 
@devilfish - Just to clarify, you accidentally typed three species when the article says subspecies. The summary seems to contradict itself. It starts by saying they exhibit little genetic variation and probably went through a genetic bottleneck only 8000 years ago. Then they say there are three distinct subspecies. It seems their main rationale is geographic separation, which is one criteria for subspecies, but certainly not the only one.

The IUCN magazine with the new cat taxonomy states "On the basis of the evidence so far, we recognise a monotypic species, Panthera uncia." In their color chart they list three historic subspecies. P.u. uncia is green (meaning certain), P.u. schneideri is yellow (meaning maybe) with a note "Possibly distinct; molecular study urgently required." P.u. baikalensisromanii is red (meaning probably not) with a note "Probably not distinct, data lacking."

Please note these Latin names do not match the proposed names in the study referenced above (except the nominate name of course). They propose P.u. irbis (north), P.u. uncia (west), P.u. uncioides (central).
 
It is interesting research, but subspecies are basically fluid things in the wild. Breeding programs in zoos would do better if they take account of ambiguity and uncertainity. Basically, conserve distinct lineages, but not in an old approach which was designed for well differentiated species: either it is distinct, so keep it distinct, or mix freely.

Another thought is that IUCN conservation status of an animal often changes every few years. Zoos might also have to take it into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top