Tiger Species

I'm going to say something radical, which is that the species-subspecies system of classification was made long before genetic research was possible, and the current trend of research does not always make for results easily translatable into the existing systems of classification. Even if we can determine with certainty the distance of two animals, translating that difference into species-subspecies is not an exact science, and likely never will be. There's no biological benchmark, ala Jibster

My issue here is that the presentation of the relevant research in the two reports I read contained no commentary on the genetics of the matter, only optimism about how it might simplify tiger conservation. I am sure the scientific paper might have more information, but that doesn't sound like a vote of confidence, imo

Also, just to own up - I'm very used to discussing this stuff in the vernacular and sometimes say 'the species' when I mean a subspecies, and fully apologize. This is not the place for me to make that kind of conflation.
 
JVM said:
I'm going to say something radical, which is that the species-subspecies system of classification was made long before genetic research was possible, and the current trend of research does not always make for results easily translatable into the existing systems of classification. Even if we can determine with certainty the distance of two animals, translating that difference into species-subspecies is not an exact science, and likely never will be. There's no biological benchmark, ala Jibster

My issue here is that the presentation of the relevant research in the two reports I read contained no commentary on the genetics of the matter, only optimism about how it might simplify tiger conservation. I am sure the scientific paper might have more information, but that doesn't sound like a vote of confidence, imo

Also, just to own up - I'm very used to discussing this stuff in the vernacular and sometimes say 'the species' when I mean a subspecies, and fully apologize. This is not the place for me to make that kind of conflation.
Click to expand...

Not radical at all, JVM - we're of the same mind on the topic. There is no real consensus on how the subspecies/species issue translates into conservation issues (note how the IUCN red book does not even list bird subspecies, but does evaluate at least some mammal subspecies).

And I forgive you for the whole species/subspecies confusion - many on the list are quick to issue corrections or use studies that have not been around long enough to be generally accepted (e.g., relating to the species status of the northern white rhinoceros, the number of species/subspecies of giraffe, the newest artiodactyl study that greatly increases the number of accepted "species") and in these cases, either term can often be correct depending on what study you put most faith in.
 
In a long-discussed move, the government of Kazakhstan has announced the first "Caspian" tiger reintroduction program.

The WWF-backed project centres on a new nature reserve bordering Lake Balkhash. Extensive habitat restoration and re-establishing a prey base are necessary, coupled with training rangers and community engagement. Releases are not expected until at least 2025.

Tigers went extinct in southwestern Ili-Balkhash 70 years ago.

Kazakhstan to reintroduce wild tigers after 70-year absence
 
Last edited:
The program also calls first and foremost for reestablishing significant populations of kulan and Bactrian deer here, both endangered species in the country.
 
The situation has become more confusing.

The IUCN Cat Classification Force has revised its taxonomy to recognize only two P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica as valid subspecies. The paper makes some interesting observations in general, but on tigers, it's sadly a little lacking, focused on analyzing the Sunda populations, which in my experience are actually under less dispute among those I've spoken with here and elsewhere. It does curiously suggest that the Malayan tiger is a nomen nudum, as it was never formally described as expected. (As has been discussed elsewhere, it also recommends further research on leopards, collapsing Amur into North Chinese, and follows the two species model for lions with an extra note or two on the Asiatic population.)

A Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae

The following article sheds a little more light on the already discussed study, but features commentary from both sides of the aisle on the issue from scientists in China, Russia and Germany. The quotations attributed to the team acknowledge but seem to downplay genetic markers between known groups, while skeptics suggest the team's use of morphological and ecological concerns is outright dismissive of the genetics.

Controversial study claims there are only two types of tiger (ScienceMag)

Late last year in October, however, the results of a genome-widy study were published in Current Biology that concluded that there are still six distinct living (sub)species of Tiger, each with a distinct evolutionary history more so than other living big cats, though acknowledging limited data on the South China subspecies. As a result, the project will continue to search out historical specimens of the South China tiger, as well as the three known extinct subspecies to make more detailed comparisons.

Genome-wide study confirms six tiger subspecies

So, there is still a great deal of unresolved scientific debate on the matter, primarily based around the importance and relevance of certain genetic markers, but the IUCN has formally adopted the position that there are two tiger subspecies.
 
JVM said:
The situation has become more confusing.

The IUCN Cat Classification Force has revised its taxonomy to recognize only two P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica as valid subspecies. The paper makes some interesting observations in general, but on tigers, it's sadly a little lacking, focused on analyzing the Sunda populations, which in my experience are actually under less dispute among those I've spoken with here and elsewhere. It does curiously suggest that the Malayan tiger is a nomen nudum, as it was never formally described as expected. (As has been discussed elsewhere, it also recommends further research on leopards, collapsing Amur into North Chinese, and follows the two species model for lions with an extra note or two on the Asiatic population.)

A Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae

The following article sheds a little more light on the already discussed study, but features commentary from both sides of the aisle on the issue from scientists in China, Russia and Germany. The quotations attributed to the team acknowledge but seem to downplay genetic markers between known groups, while skeptics suggest the team's use of morphological and ecological concerns is outright dismissive of the genetics.

Controversial study claims there are only two types of tiger (ScienceMag)

Late last year in October, however, the results of a genome-widy study were published in Current Biology that concluded that there are still six distinct living (sub)species of Tiger, each with a distinct evolutionary history more so than other living big cats, though acknowledging limited data on the South China subspecies. As a result, the project will continue to search out historical specimens of the South China tiger, as well as the three known extinct subspecies to make more detailed comparisons.

Genome-wide study confirms six tiger subspecies

So, there is still a great deal of unresolved scientific debate on the matter, primarily based around the importance and relevance of certain genetic markers, but the IUCN has formally adopted the position that there are two tiger subspecies.
Click to expand...

Once the scientists have finished arguing, most of the 'sub-species' will be extinct. Then I guess, their conclusions will be easier to make. In the meantime, zoos must do what they can...
 
The title of this thread (I didn't saw it untilnow) is just annoying, likely a zoo visitor that call squirrel to a lemur or some other of the delicacies that zoochatters put in the thread about "Things that irritate you when you visit a zoo" (or something like that). Can please some moderator edit the title and the first posts for correct the flagrant errors, if MilleniaLad is agree in it?
 
Kakapo said:
The title of this thread (I didn't saw it untilnow) is just annoying, likely a zoo visitor that call squirrel to a lemur or some other of the delicacies that zoochatters put in the thread about "Things that irritate you when you visit a zoo" (or something like that). Can please some moderator edit the title and the first posts for correct the flagrant errors, if MilleniaLad is agree in it?
Click to expand...
I really see no problem. Maybe edit it to subspecies, but really, there is nothing annoying. The conversation has been about tiger subspecies discussion. And, his name is Zoofan15, I know the avatar says Millenial Lad, but still.
 
Kakapo said:
The title of this thread (I didn't saw it untilnow) is just annoying, likely a zoo visitor that call squirrel to a lemur or some other of the delicacies that zoochatters put in the thread about "Things that irritate you when you visit a zoo" (or something like that). Can please some moderator edit the title and the first posts for correct the flagrant errors, if MilleniaLad is agree in it?
Click to expand...

It’s somewhat ironic that your post which complains of my post containing errors, contains at least nine errors itself.

I’m actually more bothered about how I uncessarily capitilised ‘tiger’ several times, when listing the sub species; but nonetheless acknowledge my mistake in confusing the concept of species with subspecies and consent to moderators editing it in the manner suggested by @ZooBinh (if they have the time and/or the inclination).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top