• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

HMW Handbook of the Mammals of the World (1 Viewer)

I would add that Przewalski wild horses have different number of chromosomes from the domestic horses - which didn't prevent frequent hybridization (all living Przewalski's horses have some domestic blood).

Pigs are interesting and suprpisingly understudied, but I think papers on pig domestication and pygmy hog phylogeny would notice if Sus scrofa were more than one species. BTW, collared peccaries, in turn, showed specific-level genetic differences between N and S America.
 
... but I think papers on pig domestication and pygmy hog phylogeny would notice if Sus scrofa were more than one species.

Most of these have just included a few more or less random samples of the wild Sus scrofa (often only S. s. scrofa), and therefore have revealed little on possible species-level issue among the wild taxa. There are exceptions, though none have focussed primarily on this and therefore given results allowing for clear judgement, as also described on pp. 22 & onwards in the following, which also comments on the issue of domestic pigs versus ancestors. It should be noted, however, that it is authored by a strong proponent of PSC (NOTE: large file - don't bother if you're not really interested in this):

http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Albarella et al. pigs.pdf

As above is from 2007 it obviously doesn't mention the simultaneous publication that validated Porcula. Regardless, there are also other unresolved taxonomical issues in south-east Asian Sus as shown by e.g. Lucchini, Meijaard, Diong, Groves & Randi (2005) in J. Zool., London, 266.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any references of the cases you describe for mammalia?

Missed that earlier. First two non-Sorex examples. The presence of complex chromosomal variations for the second example, Mus musculus, is relatively well known and far more has been written about it than just the two references I mention here:

* Pieczarka, de Souza Barros, de Faria Jr, & Nagamachi (1993). Aotus from the southwestern Amazon region is geographically and chromosomally intermediate between A. azarae boliviensis and A. infulatus. Primates 34(2): 197-204.

* Castiglia & Capanna (1999). Contact zones between chromosomal races of Mus musculus domesticus. 1. Temporal analysis of a hybrid zone between the CD chromosomal race (2n=22) and populations with the standard karyotype. Heredity 83(3): 319–326.

* Solano, Castiglia & Capanna (2009). Chromosomal evolution of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, in the Aeolian Archipelago (Sicily, Italy). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 96 (1): 194-202.

The situation in Sorex is highly complex, where there are both so-called "chromosomal races" and even monotypic species with major variations in their chromosomes. The most extreme is S. araneus where the diploid number varies from 2n = 20-33! Numerous articles + at least one Ph.D. Thesis dealing with this have been written - indeed, few other mammalian groups have had their chromosomes analysed to the same extend as the widespread Palearctic Sorex and below are just a sample of articles. Note that the first deals with another species (S. tundrensis; 2n = 31-41), but there are yet other species with known chromosomal variations (e.g. S. trowbridgii; 2n = 31-42), and several species from this genus are still rather poorly known (i.e. they may display some chromosomal variations, but at this point it remains unknown).

* Lukáĉová, Zima & Volobouev (1996). Karyotypic variation in Sorex tundrensis (Soricidae, Insectivora). Hereditas 125(2-3): 233-238.

* Polyakov, Chadova, Rodionova, Panov, Dobrotvorsky, Searle & Borodin (1997). Novosibirsk revisited 24 years on: chromosome polymorphism in the Novosibirsk population of the common shrew Sorex araneus L. Heredity 79(2), 172–177.

* Narain & Fredga (1997). Meiosis and fertility in common shrews, Sorex araneus from a chromosomal hybrid zone in central Sweden. Cytogenetics and cell genetics 78(3-4): 253-259.

* Fedyk & Chętnicki (2007). Preferential segregation of metacentric chromosomes in simple Robertsonian heterozygotes of Sorex araneus. Heredity 99(5): 545–552.

* Fredga & Narain (2008). The complex hybrid zone between the Abisko and Sidensjö chromosome races of Sorex araneus in Sweden. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 70(2): 285-307.

* Ratkiewicz, Fedyk, Banaszek, Gielly, Chetnicki, Jadwiszczak & Taberlet (2002). The evolutionary history of the two karyotypic groups of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, in Poland. Heredity 88(4): 235–242.

* Borodin, Karamysheva, Belonogova, Torgasheva, Rubtsov, & Searle (2008). Recombination Map of the Common Shrew, Sorex araneus (Eulipotyphla, Mammalia). Genetics 178(2): 621–632.

* Andersson, Narain, Tegelström & Fredga (2004). No apparent reduction of gene flow in a hybrid zone between the West and North European karyotypic groups of the common shrew, Sorex araneus. Molecular Ecology 13(5): 1205-1215.

* Wójcik, Ratkiewicz & Searle (2002). Evolution of the common shrew Sorex araneus: chromosomal and molecular aspects. Acta Theriologica 47 (suppl. 1): 139-167.

Of course it should be noted that I did not say this was the norm among mammals (simply that it occurs; there are also more known examples than the above + quite certainly several that still haven't been discovered, as the chromosomes of most mammals still haven't been analysed in detail), and if speaking about the mammal you mentioned, the human, major changes in the chromosomes are generally either debilitating or lethal (at least all the ones I know).
 
Last edited:
snip

Of course it should be noted that I did not say this was the norm among mammals (simply that it occurs; there are also more known examples than the above + quite certainly several that still haven't been discovered, as the chromosomes of most mammals still haven't been analysed in detail), and if speaking about the mammal you mentioned, the human, major changes in the chromosomes are generally either debilitating or lethal (at least all the ones I know).

Thanks a ton Rasmus, that should keep me busy for a while. I found a description of the Japanese raccoon dog which also varies in karyotype, but that description did not include anything on consequences, quite opposite of your references if I guess right.

Regarding humans, the only neutral chromosomal variation that springs to mind are small centric inversions and length variation in the non-coding part of the Y.

Niels
 
....Regarding humans, the only neutral chromosomal variation that springs to mind are small centric inversions and length variation in the non-coding part of the Y.

Niels

I guess, XYY individuals would count as well? Though there are indications that there are some effects.

What an interesting thread this has become! Having taught biology for decades, but being retired now, it almost makes me glad I did not know of all the complications earlier. ;-) At any rate, fascinating and a great way to find confirmation that nature never ceases to offer new puzzles.

I should add that I have also not been impressed with that general introductory chapter. It started out with the rather primitive looking illustrations. Textbook style is the apt description for them, and of a rather boring type indeed. Good thing the rest of the book offers more excitement. But I also felt a dejà vu in more than one case when looking at the photos. Part of the problem may have come from the way the pictures were selected. A friend of mine who contributes to both HBW and HMW, mentioned that the editors did not even want photos for the cats when they invited contributors to send pictures. I think that kind of procedure leads to the multiple use of many of the already often published photos. Thus effectively reducing the chances for new versions of some undeniably spectacular events.
 
Last edited:
Yes XYY is borderline. Also worth mentioning is the copy number variation of large areas (the largest I know of is about 1 million bp, but I expect to see some larger ones in the future) that have started to become uncovered; however, the jury is still out on which of these have any influence on phenotype, and which does not.

Niels
 
Having taught biology for decades, but being retired now, it almost makes me glad I did not know of all the complications earlier. ;-) At any rate, fascinating and a great way to find confirmation that nature never ceases to offer new puzzles.

Do you know that at least 3 unrelated rodents lost Y chromosome and have X0 system? Sorry, cannot quote paper now.

I think that kind of procedure leads to the multiple use of many of the already often published photos.

Somehow, in HBW I don't remember so many already published bird photos. And such obviously captive animals - like these two gibbons on the grass lawn...
 
Somehow, in HBW I don't remember so many already published bird photos. And such obviously captive animals - like these two gibbons on the grass lawn...

Actually, there have been plenty of obvious captives, but mostly in the earlier volumes of HBW (which also provided less coverage of ssp's, thereby also matching HMW vol. 1 more closely than later volumes of HBW). It is in no way limited to these, but just check photos in the Phasianidae & Cracidae chapters of HBW vol. 2. There have also been several examples from more recent volumes that (to me, anyway) clearly involved captives, though they now tend to blurr out the background. A particularly unfortunate example can be seen on pp. 127 in HBW vol. 10, where I suspect the indicated locality of the captive is to blame for a mistaken identification. Regardless, I suspect we'll see the same developement in HMW that we've already seen in HBW; several improvements being adopted along the way, with later volumes better than earlier.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I see no problem with photos of captive animals if the species or behavior was impossible to photograph in the wild and, ideally, the captive status was noted.

So I see no problem in captive photo of extremely shy rusty-spotted cat or various cracids. But a red fox, puma or a white-handed gibbon? It's a stuff you see on wall calendars.
 
Pre-order price for Volume II is available!
I asked one of editors of Family Bovidae , for subspecies presentation in new volume. He mailed me that they will presenting a newly updated taxonomic list (at least for Bovidae), which recognizes many subspecies as full species,(There are going to be ten species of blue duiker, ten species of klipspringer, five lechwe, etc.)

So, will see;)
 
Does anyone know if there is an official checklist anywhere for this series?

The lynx page mentions that the book will cover the latest taxonomic revisions, and that Bovidae has "doubled" it's size to 279 species. Wikipedia, which is based on on MSW3, lists 140 species. That is a pretty big damn jump in diversity, especially compared to changes in the carnivore volume, which for the most part was somewhat conservative on species limits (IMHO)
 
The lynx page mentions that the book will cover the latest taxonomic revisions, and that Bovidae has "doubled" it's size to 279 species. Wikipedia, which is based on on MSW3, lists 140 species.
Morgan, maybe the sexes have been split... ;)

...but that should give an even number. :h?:
 
I own the first book and they don't appear to apply the phylogenetic species concept in that volume, as we don't see much in the way of wolf splits (for instance)

Similarly, I don't see the Giraffe split in the next volume, based on the sample pages
 
I thought exactly the same, about giraffes !I hope at least 1 new specie of giraffe. I thing that, some authors are more brave than other! I saw listed authors of bovidae 1,5 year ago, they ware 2 or 3, now they are 9 ! May be Lynx count on this Family to promote Vol II. I own the volume I too and I'm little disappointed, about subspecies info, so I'm happy that they become a species.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top