Panther locals may be different species...

Jeweledchameleons

Jeweledchameleons

Avid Member
There's and interesting study regarding what old science as thought of as a single species of girafffe.
Recent DNA analysis has provided evidence that the large grouping of all into a single species is incorrect.
There are many distinct species that have been undergoing hybridization in zoos that believed
that they were in effect "just different locals".

Background
A central question in the evolutionary diversification of large, widespread, mobile mammals is how substantial differentiation can arise, particularly in the absence of topographic or habitat barriers to dispersal. All extant giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) are currently considered to represent a single species classified into multiple subspecies. However, geographic variation in traits such as pelage pattern is clearly evident across the range in sub-Saharan Africa and abrupt transition zones between different pelage types are typically not associated with extrinsic barriers to gene flow, suggesting reproductive isolation.

Results
By analyzing mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellite loci, we show that there are at least six genealogically distinct lineages of giraffe in Africa, with little evidence of interbreeding between them. Some of these lineages appear to be maintained in the absence of contemporary barriers to gene flow, possibly by differences in reproductive timing or pelage-based assortative mating, suggesting that populations usually recognized as subspecies may potentially represent different species. Further, five of the six putative lineages also contain genetically discrete populations, yielding at least 11 genetically distinct populations.

Conclusions
Such extreme genetic subdivision within a large vertebrate with high dispersal capabilities is unprecedented and exceeds that of any other large African mammal. Our results have significant implications for giraffe conservation, and imply separate in-situ and ex-situ management, not only of pelage morphs, but also of local populations.
Click to expand...
LINK: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/57

BBC article:
Not one but 'six giraffe species'
Anna-Marie Lever
Science and nature reporter, BBC News


Giraffe populations have dropped by 30% over the past decade
The world's tallest animal, the giraffe, may actually be several species, a study has found.

A report in BMC Biology uses genetic evidence to show that there may be at least six species of giraffe in Africa.

Currently giraffes are considered to represent a single species classified into multiple subspecies.

The study shows geographic variation in hair coat colour is evident across the giraffe's range in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting reproductive isolation.

"Using molecular techniques we found that giraffes can be classified into six groups that are reproductively isolated and not interbreeding," David Brown, the lead author of the study and a geneticist at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), told BBC News.

"The results were a surprise because although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely."

The study also found that the two giraffe subspecies that live closest to each other - the reticulated giraffe (Currently: Giraffa camelopardalis reticulate) in North Kenya, which has reddish round spots; and the Maasai giraffe (Currently: Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi) in South Kenya - separated 0.5 to 1.5 million years ago.


SOME GIRAFFE FACTS
The familiar animals can grow up to 6m (20ft) in height
Their remarkable tongues grow up to 45cm (18in) long
Adult giraffes can weigh in excess of 1,000kg (2,200lbs)
Long legs enable speeds of up to 35miles/hour (55km/h)
These results are interesting as giraffes are highly mobile animals. They frequently range over several hundred square kilometres and are capable of long distance movements of some 50-300km (30-170 miles), which means different populations are likely to meet.

Mr Brown added: "There are no rivers or forests to prevent breeding, but some evolutionary process is keeping the two groups reproductively separated."

The researchers have suggested this separation may be being driven by ecological differences, such as differences in vegetation at a micro-level, or even sexual selection.

"The female Maasai giraffe may be looking at the male reticulated giraffe and thinking, 'I don't look like you; I don't want to mate with you'," Mr Brown explained.

Need for conservation

Mr Brown also highlighted the conservation implications of this study: "Lumping all giraffes into one species obscures the reality that some kinds of giraffe are on the brink.

"Some of these populations number only a few hundred individuals and need immediate protection."

Over the past decade there has been a 30% drop in giraffe numbers, with total numbers under 100,000.

It is hoped that classifying current subspecies as fully fledged species will help inform conservation plans to save the most threatened populations. These include:

The Nigerian giraffe (Currently: Giraffa camelopardalis peralta). The last 160 individuals are found in found in West and Central Africa.
The Rothschild giraffe (Currently: Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi). The last few hundred can only be found in a few protected areas in Kenya and in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda.
The animals' status is currently under review by an International Giraffe Working Group (IGWG). Its evidence will inform the IUCN Red List of threatened and endangered species.

The genetic research was supported by the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7156146.stm

This seems to also be true and apply to the different "localities" for the different panther groups.
The differences between different groups is more than just coloration
there are physical differences as well.
All totaled they may be different species or on their evolutionary way to complete division.

This brings up the ethical concerns with hybridizing the different groups domestically.
Let the fun begin.... thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I totally believe that Ankaramy panthers are a subspecies of panther. They are smaller, more delicate and have distinctive pointed heads. (I also think they are easily the most beautiful)
 
I saw that story but I don't think it necessarily applies to F. pardalis. Variation in color and small differences in morphology proportions don't necessarily imply a different sub-species. For example, in the giraffes, it was stated that they had always been believed to be one species. It was only through observing mate selection behavior and DNA studies that it was realized they were different. F. pardalis still recognize each other as potential mates, even if they're from across the country from each other, so that one's out. So that would leave DNA study, right? Hopefully we'll get that some day.

As to the ethics thing, once these animals have been taken out of the wild, there is no more ethics. Their mate selection is anything but natural, regardless of whether they stay in the same locality-type or not. Since the babies bred in captivity will not ever be released back to Madagascar, it is a personal choice.
 
I have nothing to provide really, Interesting, but I don't think the field of research is getting too much attention right now. Kent, I'm not sure you can count out that point, since females are nearly identical with very subtle differences, from all around Madagascar. In the Giraffes, as I understood it, with the locales, even the females are distinguishable from another locale. It's possible that the differences in the localities of females, is even so slight that males cannot tell.


Anyway.... Interesting. Although I'm more partial to breedings that attempt to stay more true to locale specific offspring, (I guess I like the offspring better than mixes), this breeding of the locales for designer panthers, is going to happen subspecies or not. It has never stopped anyone in the field of snake sub-species breeding, let alone entirely different species, and snakes from entirely different continents.

Blood Pythons X Ball Pythons
Reticulated Python X Burmese Python
Ball python x Carpet python
Yellow Anaconda x Boa Constrictor Imp.
Kingsnakes X Cornsnakes
Milksnakes X Kingsnakes
Just off the top of my head...

It would seem that entirely different species, that look entirely different in morphology and have different reproductive habits and courting methods, will recognize each other as potential mates. Another reason I wouldn't count out that point. Weather or nit it applies to F.pardalis, I'll let the biologists figure that one out. Until then speculation and good natured conversation is all we have I think.
 
Will Hayward said:
Kent, I'm not sure you can count out that point, since females are nearly identical with very subtle differences, from all around Madagascar. In the Giraffes, as I understood it, with the locales, even the females are distinguishable from another locale. It's possible that the differences in the localities of females, is even so slight that males cannot tell.
Click to expand...

I agree nothing will be known for sure until genetic studies are conducted but for now there are a few things I'm not sure I agree with above. Will, are you saying females have no choice in the mate selection process?

Also, the snake example is a good one in regards to what captive breeders will do. For the topic of mate selection, I'm not sure it applies though because most snakes have very poor eyesight and mating has more to do with pheromones and other stimuli. I'm not sure about the sense of smell in giraffes, but I know it is rather poorly developed in chameleons. I know giraffes and chameleons both have good eyesight, compared to a lot of animals though. With the case of chameleons, vision is the primary sense used in finding mates. If both male and female panthers of different localities recognize each other as potential mates based on visual characteristics and giraffes don't, that is different. Also, we know that a male panther from the east coast will consider a male panther from say, Ankaramy, as a breeding rival and they will fight. Is the same true of these species of giraffe? Since males of one species (or subspecies, however you look at it) are not attracted to females of other, sympatric species, I doubt the opposing males would view each other as rivals. I could be wrong of course, but more food for thought.
 
Sénior Hairfarmabiole you say-ah
It was only through observing mate selection behavior and DNA studies that it was realized they were different. F. pardalis still recognize each other as potential mates, even if they're from across the country from each other, so that one's out.
Click to expand...

Please reread the study.:)
The giraffe's will mate and hybridize in a caged environment such as a zoo.
IF in the wild, the female choose who she'll take. The study says that she
will prefer to pick the guy that most "reminds her of daddy".

I will also bet that a female panther if given the choice in captivity
will also pick her regional local species over one farther removed.
The issue is that she really doesn't get the choice... the owner does.

After all there is a reason why these developed different traits
in the first place. Subtile it may be, but panther females
may travel to a chosen males territory
in order to mate when she's going into cycle.
Just like every other female I've ever known....
they choose who they want and present themselves.

It's the males that aren't all that overly choosy
as my sambava head bobs at even young veild males shows

I believe that until DNA examination shows different we should keep
ourselves from hybridizing the different locals (species).
if for anything... just to play it safe and not do anything wrong.

Is the same true of these species of giraffe? Since males of one species (or subspecies, however you look at it) are not attracted to females of other, sympatric species, I doubt the opposing males would view each other as rivals.
Click to expand...
males will fight... haven't you seen the video's of them head butting?
aggression during the females mating cycle is going to correspond with male Testosterone
and we both knows what that does... right?
I believe that they'll generalize against a potential rival to a much greater degree
even when NOT in the presence of any female in estrus.
as pointed out in the study the different types dont mix in the wild.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=giraffe+fighting&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 
Last edited:
Jeweledchameleons said:
Sénior Hairfarmabiole you say-ah


Please reread the study.:)
The giraffe's will mate and hybridize in a caged environment such as a zoo.
IF in the wild, the female choose who she'll take. The study says that she
will prefer to pick the guy that most "reminds her of daddy".

I will also bet that a female panther if given the choice in captivity
will also pick her regional local species over one farther removed.
The issue is that she really doesn't get the choice... the owner does.
Click to expand...

Wow, and you didn't like Ronaldo?

Ok, I didn't word that right. I know what happens in captivity with giraffe species (or subsp.) hybridizing. They choose not to in the wild which is where I was headed. Do the males of different species see each other as romantic rivals in captivity?

At any rate, I don't believe that a female panther would choose a mate based on locale type alone, in the wild or in captivity, but that sure would make an interesting study.
 
granted will.
They don't seem to have much of a courtship for the CB animals.
that's why I mention that the wild females may move into a chosen males territory
before she's fully receptive.. in preparation.

Veiled males travel around during breeding season
visiting every local female and driving out other males
until she becomes non receptive and drives him off.

more study is needed indeed.
but this is food for thought on weather or not
different locals should be crossed domestically.
 
well i know that animals are based on: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. where would the Subspecies fall in their? if it did at all... maybe between Genus and Species?....???
 
Sub-species.
Sub meaning Below.
Below Species.

They are Chamaeleonidae Furcifer pardalis (Family, Genus, Species). The arguement is whether or not they should be classified as Furcifer pardalis Sub-Sp.
 
Nope, Right now they're listed as a single species
the french that studied jared animals in alcohol were unable see the color ranges
and local groupings (all colors were lost). Not to mention that they also
were likely working with a very small sample from only one part of the island
when they classified them and mostly worked from field notes and bone structure.

Adjustments to how plants and animals are positioned on the "tree of life"
are being made all the time. The more that is learned about a single species
the more "adjustments" are made... the more branches created.

If we had the resources, the problem could be settled with DNA analysis
of the different locals. As you've likely observed...
I'm in favor of splitting them up into several subspecies.
 
Jeweledchameleons said:
Not to mention that they also
were likely working with a very small sample from only one part of the island
when they classified them and mostly worked from field notes and bone structure.
Click to expand...

If memory serves me, I believe the type locality from the original description is from Reunion Island, where it was introduced by man.
 
Humans come in an astonishing variety of colors and physical forms. There is much greater variation within the human species then between the various pardalis locales. I don't think anyone of us would suggest that we start separating humanity into different species based on the way we look. It should be obvious that populations of the same species that are spread out and separated geographically develop distinct characteristics.

Unless they are reproductively isolated and have been for a while, the differences are only skin deep.

Pardalis are the same species and any subspecies names we put on them are as meaningless as names and political boundaries we assign to the land.

I think trying to break them into different species (which is warrantless at this point) or even subspecies (with the possible exception of distinct island locales) is implying a sense of different "type" or purity that isn't really there.

I feel that assigning subspecies to every little variant group (especially with a species so naturally variable as pardalis) takes away from our appreciation of how diverse the species is as a whole.
 
Also, I would like to say that i very strongly agree with Kent (hairfarm) views on breeding locales together - especially the part about how NONE of our CB panthers will ever be reintroduced into the wild on purpose...

and also the part about how DNA study is the only way to really know the differences and similarities between the pardalis locales. Time will tell on that one :)

Just my 2 cents.


PS - Nice job to you guys on not turning this into a fight about evolution and speciation and all the other nasty side-topics that surround hybrids and genetics and stuff! This is a good group on here :D
 
Unless they are reproductively isolated and have been for a while, the differences are only skin deep.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is wrong. Ever wonder why certain races of humans are in general and majority more athletic than others, more suited for certain environments, have a more natural talent for certain things, etc, etc. Not so skin deep.

More pennies for the pile.
 
Well lets see.... joefarah

[JC twittles his fingers as he thinks... ]

Humans are much younger as a species than the chameleons by tens
of millions of years according the the fossil record.
Sadly we can't back much of what I think may be the case with any DNA
evidence -like we can on the humo sapian side.

What we know is that most of us come from a *very small group*
that made it out of Africa in two waves only a few 10's of thousands
of years ago. Since that time we've spread and diversified along
with some key individuals in between.
About 90% of all humans outside of africa can be traced to a single male
individual that lived in what is now central asia.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

What we've done is radiated out and developed along different lines
from a dozen key individuals.
Those evolved differences are NOT skin deep, they're going all the way
down to the level of DNA.
Given enough time and isolation we would have surely branched out far
enough to be classified as several different species.
But that will not happen nowdays as we're all very free to be mobile and mix.

I think that the panthers have had the amount of time and isolation
to be classified with a few different subspecies of F.p.
The differences would be greater if they had wider range of habitats to adapt to.
The locals are different, just not different enough so that most can see it easily
with the then current tech just like hundreds of years ago with the giraffes.

I believe that DNA examination will provide the required proof to make this case solid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
CANV…Nannizziopsis…
Replies
0
Views
65
kinyonga
K
PetNcs
Bamboo alert
Replies
1
Views
153
elizaann2
elizaann2
Chris Anderson
Clinging to survival: Critically Endangered Chapman's pygmy chameleon Rhampholeon chapmanorum persists in shrinking forest patches
Replies
3
Views
2K
leedragon
leedragon
Brodybreaux25
Transsexual Chams
Replies
0
Views
540
Brodybreaux25
Brodybreaux25
C
  • Locked
True Kenyan t. jacksonii xantholophus for sale
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chameleons International
C
Back
Top Bottom