Thank you for this thread, Lintworm, and looking for more.
Looking at five pictures of Chamois in this thread I was able to assign only one - the classic Abruzzo chamois - to any form. Individual and seasonal differences are simply bigger than differences between races or "species".
About wild sheep. Russian sources, which have most information of wild sheep of Eurasia, lump all Old World sheep into one species. They state that all local forms pass into each other clinally. Picking individuals from distant part of the range will make them look like different species, but they are connected by intermediates.
In this thread, I feel more and more like lumper. Looking at a random picture of a gazelle or a wild sheep I am unable to assign it into a form. Size, development of horns and shade of color, which are the main or only distinguishing characters, vary individually, seasonally and with age. In addition, size and horn development is strongly dependent from nutrition. This questions whether local differences are anything more than result of local food resources. Zoo populations in turn are inbred, and artificially don't show the range of variation of the original form.
I will remain much more a lumper than even moderate followers of the new taxonomy. It is fine to name subspecies, because there is no actual definition of a subspecies. But splitting chamois or sheep into species is simply artificial. And on top of this there is a problem of small sample sizes used to back up any claims of differences.
Looking at five pictures of Chamois in this thread I was able to assign only one - the classic Abruzzo chamois - to any form. Individual and seasonal differences are simply bigger than differences between races or "species".
About wild sheep. Russian sources, which have most information of wild sheep of Eurasia, lump all Old World sheep into one species. They state that all local forms pass into each other clinally. Picking individuals from distant part of the range will make them look like different species, but they are connected by intermediates.
In this thread, I feel more and more like lumper. Looking at a random picture of a gazelle or a wild sheep I am unable to assign it into a form. Size, development of horns and shade of color, which are the main or only distinguishing characters, vary individually, seasonally and with age. In addition, size and horn development is strongly dependent from nutrition. This questions whether local differences are anything more than result of local food resources. Zoo populations in turn are inbred, and artificially don't show the range of variation of the original form.
I will remain much more a lumper than even moderate followers of the new taxonomy. It is fine to name subspecies, because there is no actual definition of a subspecies. But splitting chamois or sheep into species is simply artificial. And on top of this there is a problem of small sample sizes used to back up any claims of differences.