Uganda Mangabey (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Just doing a bit of reading following our trip to Uganda and Rwanda and came across conflicting information regarding the status of Grey-cheeked Mangabey.

I read via Wikipedia that in 2007 the now deceased Colin Groves, split what he called 'Ugandan' Mangabey, from Grey-cheeked and gave it the scientic name Lophocebus ugandae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_mangabey

In the mammal list I'm using compiled by Jon Hall of mammalwatching.com to which I was kindly guided by Mark Andrews, there is no split and no mention of the race ugandae so I'm assuming that this split was never more widely recognised?

 

[Farnboro John]

Have you asked the question on mammalwatching.com, because Mr Dinets if no other will have a definite opinion and probably a reference to back it up.

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

Have you asked the question on mammalwatching.com, because Mr Dinets if no other will have a definite opinion and probably a reference to back it up.

John

Haven't John no.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Where do messages appear other than trip reports, is there the facility for Q&A, can't see one?

 

[Farnboro John]

Where do messages appear other than trip reports, is there the facility for Q&A, can't see one?

OK, There is a forum (under "Community"): I've not had to start a thread myself so I don't know if one has to ask Jon to do it, but people can and do respond to original posts (presumably in the same way as to trip report posts?)

- I see you have a thread running now. Look forward to seeing answers!

Cheers

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

OK, There is a forum (under "Community"): I've not had to start a thread myself so I don't know if one has to ask Jon to do it, but people can and do respond to original posts (presumably in the same way as to trip report posts?)

- I see you have a thread running now. Look forward to seeing answers!

Cheers

John

Cheers John,
it's got a delay on it, not instant like here, maybe all posts get moderated before going public?

 

[Andy Adcock]

A reply to my query.......

'Hi Andy
The Red List entry for Lophocebus albigena states that “at a Red List assessment workshop in 2016, experts from the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group were not in agreement about a four-species taxonomy and decided to retain a one-species, four-subspecies arrangement for the purposes of the current Red List”.
Ref: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/12309/17951936#taxonomy
ITIS / CoL 92019) also has it as: Lophocebus albigena ugandae (Matschie, 1912) (accepted name)
Rgds, Paul Carter'.

 

[T.O.]

Primates are already the most oversplit group, so if even primate taxonomists cannot agree, there seems to be little reason for a split...

 

[Andy Adcock]

Primates are already the most oversplit group, so if even primate taxonomists cannot agree, there seems to be little reason for a split...

Why should Primatology be any different to ornithology with contrasting / competing views? If it were so simple, there wouldn't be so many listing authorities.

There are said to be, easily recognised, morpholgical differences in 'ugandae'and I'm not arguing one way or the other, just learning and deciding what to do with my list and why.

 

[T.O.]

Why should Primatology be any different to ornithology with contrasting / competing views? If it were so simple, there wouldn't be so many listing authorities.

There are said to be, easily recognised, morpholgical differences in 'ugandae'and I'm not arguing one way or the other, just learning and deciding what to do with my list and why.

Compared to other mammal groups primates are heavily oversplit as a narrow PSC view is very prevalent. This is especially visible in S-American and Malagasy primates, where tons of new species are described, often based on only flimsy morphological data (and new splits are sometimes disproved very quickly). That is not to say all the recent splits are wrong, but it is wise to use caution.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Compared to other mammal groups primates are heavily oversplit as a narrow PSC view is very prevalent. This is especially visible in S-American and Malagasy primates, where tons of new species are described, often based on only flimsy morphological data (and new splits are sometimes disproved very quickly). That is not to say all the recent splits are wrong, but it is wise to use caution.

1 I thought that the PSC was a far more holistic approach than the BSC?

2 Is it fair to say that some of the examples you give are comparative to say the Scops Owls, many of which have possibly been split on the basis of isolation?

In general though I totally agree with you and not just on Primates, there is too much splitting happening, in many cases (HBW,HMW) it's undeniably driven by the sale of books.

 

[T.O.]

PSC offers a neat solution to a problem for which there is no neat solution. Diagnosibility is a nice criterion in theory, but in practice it means that with enough (or too little) data you can split any given populatiom of you use it strictly. Both BSC and PSC are imperfect concepts. Both have their use in informing species boundaries, but they are not a panacea.

I do not know enough about bird taxonomy to make a comparison with the Scops owls... In general it seems to me that bird taxonomists are on step ahead of mammal taxonomists, as much more data is available on them. With birds it often seems the question to me as to whether the available evidence gives differences that are large enough for a split, whereas with mammals there is often not enough material available...