a rather lengthy and vrry scientific journal was put out in jan 2010 there is far too much info too type here so i will just put out the final conclusion for comment."hence, we conclude it is best to return to the situation before s.p.babcocki was revalidated:the usage of subspecies within s. pardalis should be abandoned".
zoological systematics evolutionary research
- Thread starter John
- Start date
- Status
Yes, a lot of people feel that way. The fellow who is in partnership with me on my turtles/tortoises argues that there are no subspecies of leopard tortoises. He's quite adamant. But the folks who believe they should be two different subspecies are also quite adamant. Just the fact that they have different looks as hatchlings tells me that they are different.
squamata said:
Can you post a link to the article? Sounds pretty interesting. I'd like to read it. Thanks.
actually the link was sent too me,have not seen danny hear in some time so i'll see what i can do to find it
actually yvonne this journal is the findings of extensive dna testing it has nothing too do with range or apeasrancesemysemys said:
The abstract for the article that Squamata is referring to can be found here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2010.00565.x/abstract
Unfortunately its copyrighted material, so technically one needs to pay to view the entire article (or be a member of an organization with access, etc.)
The title for the article is "Mitochondrial phylogeography and subspecies of the wide-ranging sub-Saharan leopard tortoise Stigmochelys pardalis (Testudines: Testudinidae) – a case study for the pitfalls of pseudogenes and GenBank sequences"
The article was really meant more as a critique of some of the methods currently utilized in genetic research. They point out the flaw in the previous study that had substantiated breaking the leopards into pardalis and babcocki.
There's fuel enough in this article for both sides of the debate.
Personally my take on it is somewhat as follows:
IF we are going to break down leopards by sub-species, there is much more work to be done. It would appear that there are more than two "sub-species". As it is currently set-up, pardalis is one (plus maybe a couple more) haplotypes, and babcocki is a waste-basket of everything else.
A more reasonable approach is to view all Leopards as one species, but recognize the distinctive Geographic Phenotypes that exist in the wild. More study needs to be done here as well. The Haplotype range map presented in the article correlates to some geographic differences in Africa over the range studied. This implies that some of the haplotypes may represent phenotypes adapted to differing environments. These animals may in fact require mildly different cares in captive conditions.
In other words at present Leopards from SE Africa and NE Africa are both considered "Babcockers", when in fact they have different genetics and different environments.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2010.00565.x/abstract
Unfortunately its copyrighted material, so technically one needs to pay to view the entire article (or be a member of an organization with access, etc.)
The title for the article is "Mitochondrial phylogeography and subspecies of the wide-ranging sub-Saharan leopard tortoise Stigmochelys pardalis (Testudines: Testudinidae) – a case study for the pitfalls of pseudogenes and GenBank sequences"
The article was really meant more as a critique of some of the methods currently utilized in genetic research. They point out the flaw in the previous study that had substantiated breaking the leopards into pardalis and babcocki.
There's fuel enough in this article for both sides of the debate.
Personally my take on it is somewhat as follows:
IF we are going to break down leopards by sub-species, there is much more work to be done. It would appear that there are more than two "sub-species". As it is currently set-up, pardalis is one (plus maybe a couple more) haplotypes, and babcocki is a waste-basket of everything else.
A more reasonable approach is to view all Leopards as one species, but recognize the distinctive Geographic Phenotypes that exist in the wild. More study needs to be done here as well. The Haplotype range map presented in the article correlates to some geographic differences in Africa over the range studied. This implies that some of the haplotypes may represent phenotypes adapted to differing environments. These animals may in fact require mildly different cares in captive conditions.
In other words at present Leopards from SE Africa and NE Africa are both considered "Babcockers", when in fact they have different genetics and different environments.
dmmj said:
I was thinking the exact same thing!! You know what they say...great minds, etc, etc!!
What about Redfoots too?
All of them. I have always found it odd that Redfoots are delineated into "locales" while Russians have ssp. I guess the same could be true for Leos. If Redfoots don't have ssp., then it makes sense that Leos could just vary according to "locale" as well.
The problem with scientist is they want to group things into neat little packages and nature just doesn't give a hoot about such things. Hear in the PNW some biologest want to seperate salmon not only by species but by individual river systems. A species might be abundent in many river systems but with declining salmon numbers in another river system so scientist want to close all the fishing for that species. Just my inflated two pennies. Jack
Good points on redfoots and russians.
The whole concept of sub-species is a major headache, just look at greeks, which is why I think a large part of science wants to abandon the whole practice. We're trying to differentiate critters and put nature in our clean little black and white organizational system when nature just doesn't play by those rules.
The "old-fashioned" defining practice of species has a much stronger test. If two critters can mate and produce viable off-spring (able to reproduce itself) its a species. If the off-spring is non-viable (sterile) they're a common genus. Nice and simple and substantiable. Beyond that you get into gray areas that you're trying to polarize.
I've had an innate resistance to the cherry-head are a sub-species so need to be maintained as such idea. Its similar to the western hermans and pardalis deal. Identifying these as sub-species gives scientific credibilty to maintaining them as "pure" lines, which creates a market for them due to rarity. This tends to de-value the "waste-basket" of all other members of the species, some of which may represent unique populations as well.
Scientifically they're all the same; a hermans is a hermans, redfoot is a redfoot, russian is a russian.
If the benefactors of a species wish to promote the maintenance of breeds representing geographical variation in the species, all the power to them. Preserve the diversity of nature. Just realize this may well fall more into the realm of human vanity than reality. A tortoise could likely care less where its parents came from, just as I could care less that I'm a mutt, with blended lines from all over Europe and outside as well. I appreciate that genetic diversity embodied in me.
The whole concept of sub-species is a major headache, just look at greeks, which is why I think a large part of science wants to abandon the whole practice. We're trying to differentiate critters and put nature in our clean little black and white organizational system when nature just doesn't play by those rules.
The "old-fashioned" defining practice of species has a much stronger test. If two critters can mate and produce viable off-spring (able to reproduce itself) its a species. If the off-spring is non-viable (sterile) they're a common genus. Nice and simple and substantiable. Beyond that you get into gray areas that you're trying to polarize.
I've had an innate resistance to the cherry-head are a sub-species so need to be maintained as such idea. Its similar to the western hermans and pardalis deal. Identifying these as sub-species gives scientific credibilty to maintaining them as "pure" lines, which creates a market for them due to rarity. This tends to de-value the "waste-basket" of all other members of the species, some of which may represent unique populations as well.
Scientifically they're all the same; a hermans is a hermans, redfoot is a redfoot, russian is a russian.
If the benefactors of a species wish to promote the maintenance of breeds representing geographical variation in the species, all the power to them. Preserve the diversity of nature. Just realize this may well fall more into the realm of human vanity than reality. A tortoise could likely care less where its parents came from, just as I could care less that I'm a mutt, with blended lines from all over Europe and outside as well. I appreciate that genetic diversity embodied in me.
Regarding russians I seem to recall egyptiandan saying the different subspecies can't breed with each other, I could be wrong. Regarding RF's don't the cherry heads come from regular RF's or am I mistaken on that?
HAHA, Jack beat me to the punch and put it better.
Dave, the cherryheads actually do come from a different region than "the redfoots". Cherryheads are primarily south of the Amazon Rainforest, the redfoots to the north of it. The western edge is a whole 'nother bag of arguments.
Dave, the cherryheads actually do come from a different region than "the redfoots". Cherryheads are primarily south of the Amazon Rainforest, the redfoots to the north of it. The western edge is a whole 'nother bag of arguments.
A few points of clarification.
Human labels on animals do not change the nature of the animals. It is just an attempt by us to better understand the relationship of animals- what is related to what and how closely. It is not the relationships that are changing as we make things into species, sub-species, etc.- it is our understanding of that relationship.
The idea is indeed that all members of a species can freely and successfully interbreed- whether it is a subspecies of the species, or a race, breed, etc. If two subspecies CANNOT successfully breed, then one of them is in the wrong species category.
Appearance or even behavior is not enough to make a species or subspecies- ALL pet dogs are the same species and there are no subspecies, but breeds breed true, and freely interbreed with every other pet dog. You can tell a dog's breed by looking at it even as a baby.
In Red-foots, the DNA evidence STRONGLY suggests that all Yellow-foots are one species (just had to say that to get it out in the open.) Then, Red-foots show 5 different DNA groups, similar to but not exactly like the sticky note about the Races of Red-foots...
- NORTHERN (PANAMANIAN)- from Panama to the Andes in Venezuela
- NORTH-EASTERN (COLUMBIAN)- Obviously in Columbia. This one surprised me- I don't think anyone had previously suggested this group before.
- NORTH-WESTERN (GUYANAN)- Venezuela to Brazil along the northern coast. This is the 'typical Red-foot'
- EASTERN (BRAZILIAN)- Eastern Brazil, home of the Cherry-head, but there are also yellow-headed tortoises in this group that are otherwise just like the Cherry's
- SOUTHERN (GRAN CHACO)- Paraguay and Bolivia
(Info from "VARGAS-RAMIREZ, Mario; Maran, Jerome; Fritz, Uwe. "Red- and yellow-footed tortoises, Chelonoidis carbonaria
and C. denticulata (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae), in South American savannahs and forests: do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats?" which can be found at http://www.fundacionbiodiversa.org/pdf/Mario/Vargas_2010_Chelonoidis.pdf. GROUP NAMES are from his paper. (NAMES IN PARENTHESIS) are the ones I use in the Tortoise Library. There is a map at http://www.tortoiselibrary.com/range.html)
This paper and others on Red-foot DNA also point out some other interesting elements, like the DNA of Red-foots does not really enter the forested regions that Yellow-foots prefer- in other words, there is one big blob of Yellow-foot DNA, but 5 'islands' of Red-foot DNA that do not mix naturally because they don't enter the forest to visit other islands.
It is likely that when the Red-foot DNA comes up for peer reviews and discussion by the proper committees, that there will end up being at least a couple new species out of it- maybe 2 species and 2-3 subs for each. More likely, however, given the current trend to eliminate official subspecies- 5 different species.
Human labels on animals do not change the nature of the animals. It is just an attempt by us to better understand the relationship of animals- what is related to what and how closely. It is not the relationships that are changing as we make things into species, sub-species, etc.- it is our understanding of that relationship.
The idea is indeed that all members of a species can freely and successfully interbreed- whether it is a subspecies of the species, or a race, breed, etc. If two subspecies CANNOT successfully breed, then one of them is in the wrong species category.
Appearance or even behavior is not enough to make a species or subspecies- ALL pet dogs are the same species and there are no subspecies, but breeds breed true, and freely interbreed with every other pet dog. You can tell a dog's breed by looking at it even as a baby.
In Red-foots, the DNA evidence STRONGLY suggests that all Yellow-foots are one species (just had to say that to get it out in the open.) Then, Red-foots show 5 different DNA groups, similar to but not exactly like the sticky note about the Races of Red-foots...
- NORTHERN (PANAMANIAN)- from Panama to the Andes in Venezuela
- NORTH-EASTERN (COLUMBIAN)- Obviously in Columbia. This one surprised me- I don't think anyone had previously suggested this group before.
- NORTH-WESTERN (GUYANAN)- Venezuela to Brazil along the northern coast. This is the 'typical Red-foot'
- EASTERN (BRAZILIAN)- Eastern Brazil, home of the Cherry-head, but there are also yellow-headed tortoises in this group that are otherwise just like the Cherry's
- SOUTHERN (GRAN CHACO)- Paraguay and Bolivia
(Info from "VARGAS-RAMIREZ, Mario; Maran, Jerome; Fritz, Uwe. "Red- and yellow-footed tortoises, Chelonoidis carbonaria
and C. denticulata (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae), in South American savannahs and forests: do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats?" which can be found at http://www.fundacionbiodiversa.org/pdf/Mario/Vargas_2010_Chelonoidis.pdf. GROUP NAMES are from his paper. (NAMES IN PARENTHESIS) are the ones I use in the Tortoise Library. There is a map at http://www.tortoiselibrary.com/range.html)
This paper and others on Red-foot DNA also point out some other interesting elements, like the DNA of Red-foots does not really enter the forested regions that Yellow-foots prefer- in other words, there is one big blob of Yellow-foot DNA, but 5 'islands' of Red-foot DNA that do not mix naturally because they don't enter the forest to visit other islands.
It is likely that when the Red-foot DNA comes up for peer reviews and discussion by the proper committees, that there will end up being at least a couple new species out of it- maybe 2 species and 2-3 subs for each. More likely, however, given the current trend to eliminate official subspecies- 5 different species.
And then you have seperate but closely related species that can breed with one another creating (fertile) hybrids that can then reproduce with each other or back to their parents. Botanist had a heck of a time in the 1800's naming North American pitcher plants there was so much back crossing.
It's available free 
http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Articles/Fritz_etal_2010a.pdf
Some neat tidbits There is nothing scientific about genus'. They are just a convient place to put like species. Our understanding of "species" goes out the window with the lower vertebrates. The Asian turtles are a prime example. Almost every asian species will hybridize with any other and 99 percent of the time they are fertile. I'm not talking animals of the same genus, but different genus. So our neat packaged idea about a species doesn't seem to fit the lower vertebrates.
Danny
http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Articles/Fritz_etal_2010a.pdfSome neat tidbits
There is nothing scientific about genus'. They are just a convient place to put like species. Our understanding of "species" goes out the window with the lower vertebrates. The Asian turtles are a prime example. Almost every asian species will hybridize with any other and 99 percent of the time they are fertile. I'm not talking animals of the same genus, but different genus. So our neat packaged idea about a species doesn't seem to fit the lower vertebrates. Danny
if they look different, do their mating rituals differ? if so chances are they are different. which paper are we refering to? can you please send me a copy i'd like to read it
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
