Talk:Central Asian red deer

Nowhere in this paper

Ludt, Christian J. "Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of red deer (Cervus elaphus)" (pdf). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31 (2004) 1064–1083. Elsevier. Retrieved 2006-10-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

you will find the name affinis for a distinct species. Moreover the tibetan and chinese subspecies (wallichi, macneilli and kansuensis) seem to belong to the elk according to that paper. The hangul (subspecies hanglu) was not sampled in this study. The other given references say nothing about this problems. So I will change the article according to the paper above. This article should be reduced to the subspecies yarkandensis, which is probably identical to bactrianus and seems to form a distinct species.--Altaileopard 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the final concensus is regarding the three species of red deer and which 3-5 subspecies constitute the Central Asian Red Deer. I do agree that the Kashmir stag (hangul), Yarkand Deer, and Bactrian Deer are more closely related and should be retained as Central Asian Red Deer. I thought the shou would be included more with Central Asian Red Deer because it does have 5-pronged antlers like the 3 subspecies I mentioned above. I can see how the MacNeill's Deer may resemble Wapitis...because many of the older males have wapiti-like antlers. However, they are predominantly 5-pronged in antler structure and their body/pelage characteristics such as tiny rump patches...resemble Central Asian Red Deer. So, I don't know if I can fully accept that Shou and MacNeill's Deer should be considered Wapiti. In the past, the Shou has been assigned to Cervus elaphus, and MacNeill's Deer assigned to Cervus canadensis. Who knows? I have emailed Dr. Valerius Geist to get more information.

Oh, and by the way, MacNeill's Deer (macneilli) and Gansu (or Kansu) Red Deer (kansuensis) are the same subspecies. User:Dlc_73 14:25, 15 Setember 2007 (UTC)

From The paper mentioned above:

(Therefore we do not support the current classification of red deer into one superspecies (Geist, 1999) nor its subdivision into numerous subspecies (Trense, 1989). The AMOVA supports the division into four Western and three Eastern groups with the Tarim group being at the basis, as it shows the highest and most significant F-values for this classification. Based on the results of this study, Western Red Deer can be subdivided into four subgroups: Western-Europe, Balkan, Middle-East, and Africa." )

The three subgroups of the Eastern group (North Asia/America, South-Asia, and East-Asia) are clearly defined. The existence of further subspecies is unlikely according to our data. Thus, the current classification into subspecies has to be reconceived thoroughly. This can be seen in the N-Asia/Amer. group with Cervus el. songaricus and sibericus as well as in the S-Asia group with Cervus el. kansuensis and macneilli which we were unable to differentiate (Figs. 3 and 4). The barriers for speciation are more difficult to identify than those in the Western Group. In light of the fact that Siberian and American wapitis are more or less identical, the isolated position of the Isubra (Cervus elaphus xanthopygus) inhabiting the Amur mountains is not easy to understand. The South Asian group is isolated by the Takla Makan and the Gobi-Deserts and evolved sympatrically with Thorolds deer.

--Altaileopard 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This paper is based on genetics and DNA, which I can understand. However, Dr. Geist in his later publications does go into detail regarding pelage characteristics, mating calls (bugles, roars, or something in between), and locomotion. MacNeill's Deer and Shou are quite primitive compared to the wapitis. Shou has a 5 pronged antler plan much like other Central Asian Red Deer and is closely related to the Kashmir stag. You know, the Kashmir stag was not sampled in the paper, does this mean that it is a wapiti? Kashmir stag and shou resemble each other. The MacNeill's deer has rump characteristics similar to Kashmir stag. Kashmir stag, Shou, and MacNeill's deer are all highland deer that are saltatorial runners and have primitive rutting calls. I don't think this article alone should be the basis for justifying MacNeill's deer and Shou as wapitis. The shou has been referred to as both "affinis" and "wallichi" but have often been referred to as the same animal. I will not overwrite what you wrote, but I do suggest reading some of Dr. Geist's latest books. Yes, the books so far still adopt the one species convention for Red Deer as Cervus elaphus...but his books "Elk Country" and "Deer of the World" do have detailed discussions about each of the subspecies known to science. Dr. Geist also mentions that some of the specimens were never actually seen and that some of these biologists assigned the subspecies to the wrong animal. Chinese deer farms often mixed subspecies together...and it was not uncommon to have shou and MacNeill's deer mixed together. The problem with Central Asia and China is that these areas are relatively isolated and politically unstable. Zoology is badly neglected in some of these parts (at least in China), so I would be careful. I still think shou, for sure, is a Central Asian Red Deer. Additionally, Dr. Geist does accept the three species of deer, but I would like to hear his views. I do have a paper/synopsis where he does state that the Central Asian Red Deer includes Bactrian Deer, Yarkand Deer, Kashmir Stag, Shou, and MacNeill's Deer.

--User:Dlc_73 13:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"I still think shou, for sure, is a Central Asian Red Deer."

Well, I think you want like to say the Shou belongs to the central asiatic group of "red deer", which seems to represent a distinct species. but actually it doesen´t matter here, what you think. Original research does not fit with wikipedia. Using this paper for wiki-taxonomy is probably already original research and I am not glad with data, based on one single publication, but I removed the worst mistakes and did some changes according to the paper, for example removing the name affinis. According to this publication, all the South Asian red deer subspecies (exept hanglu?) seem to represent one subspecies and represent one of three subgroups of the eastern Eastern group (cervus canadiensis). If you have other reliable and not to old sources, which do not agree, you can add their content to the article to reflect different positions about red deer taxonomy. (please do not forget to give refernces.)--Altaileopard 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend 2 books to read regarding Elk and Red Deer by Dr. Geist. They were written at the time when elk and red deer were united under one species Cervus elaphus, but Dr. Geist does have great descriptions of each of the subspecies and goes into good discussion and illustrations on each subspecies, their rutting calls, their body shape and markings, and more:

Geist, Valerius & Francis, Michael H. "Elk Country", NorthWord Press, 1991 (ISBN: 9781559712088)

Geist, Valerius, "Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology", Stackpole Books, 1998 (ISBN: 0811704963)

Again, please focus on the discussions and physical descriptions of each subspecies.

Also, I just received an email from Dr. Geist who has, himself, mentioned that the Ludt paper is out of date (see below), and that MacNeill's deer and Shou belong to Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus wallichi):

Dear David, The Ludt et all paper is out of date! There has been quite a bit of rethinking. As it stands now the following species arose out of the Asiatic gene pool: white-lipped deer, sika deer, wapiti/maral & Tibetan/Buchara deer. That is Cervus canadensis is the proper species name for our elk! Cervus elaphus is only the European/Asia minor red deer. The Tibetan and Buchara/Lop-Nor deer are united into Cervus wallichi. Cheers, Val Geist

The Tibetan red deer refer to Shou (Cervus wallichi wallichi), and MacNeill's/Kansu Red Deer (Cervus wallichi macneilli).

--User:Dlc_73 12:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that does not matter, what Dr. Geist says!!!! Even if he is right. If you do an edit, you have to name the refernces!!! And these have to be proofable and reliable! Everything else is original research!--Altaileopard 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do have a pdf article that does discuss this issue and refers to a later version of the paper you have referenced. I did not necessarily disagree with you, but the pdf version of the report you have has been outdated. I have already listed two good sources:

"Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology" and "Elk Country", both by Dr. Valerius Geist.

I have also corresponded with him many times on questions about these beautiful animals.

Dr. Geist can be reached at kendulf@shaw.ca

I suggest if you really want to understand this information, that you email him. He can probably point out several good resources that would be beneficial to those of us who are interested in animals.

Why do you say that what Dr. Geist says does not matter? I have his email address if you really want to correspond with him. He has written extensively on deer and elk, and I have also read his books on mountain sheep as well. He has gone into more depth into this subject than any author I know of. He does keep updated with latest information you know, and he does acknowledge that previous assumptions he has made before in his previous publications whether they be correct or incorrect. He does support the 3 species of red deer, and has a pdf file that references a later version of the Ludt paper.

I have emailed Dr. Geist your Ludt pdf file of the Ludt paper that you have provided above. So, he has looked at the pdf file you have been referencing, and his opinion is based specifically on that.

I also have the following resource that is also good:

Whitehead, G. Kenneth, "The Whitehead Encyclopedia of Deer", Swan Hill Press, 1993 (ISBN 1 85310 362 4), a rare and out-of-print book.

I am curious to know what resources you are basing your argument on other that the ludt paper you have provided above?

Are you a biologist, zoologist? Do you understand DNA diagrams that well? Have you read the resources that I have provided above? Or is your basis solely on the Ludt paper?

I have gone in great discussion and tremendous detail with Mongo long before you came into the picture. The source comes directly from Dr. Geist. I have provided two books that discuss this, and am in the process of trying to get Dr. Geist's pdf file that clearly discusses this.

I have emailed a pdf copy of the paper to Mongo Montana that I have received from Dr. Geist that discusses the 3 species of red deer, and you are welcome to a copy. He does cite Ludt paper, but a later version than the 2003 version that you have. The deer is my favorite animal, and I have read extensively on several kinds of deer and have seen several pictures. I have drawn these animals since I was 3 years old...and have read extensively on all kinds of deer even into my 30's.

--User:Dlc_73 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You said you have a "pdf". What does that mean? Is it an accepted paper or a part of a scientific book? Than it is of great interest and I would be glad if you can send it per e-mail, otherwise leave it. (I would like to have Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology, but it is a bit expensive and not 100% up to date. )

I think Dr. Geist is one of the best experts about deer and I even believe you that you have e-mail contact to him, but what he thinks or says does not amtter! It is important what his publications say and what his books say. The reason for that is, that all information in wikipedia has to be perusable!

I am biologist, but that does not matter, too! There is one thing that counts here: References!

I think we should not waste to much time with discussions of that kind, but I would like to work together with you. I think we should go through the whole article (and also the taxonomic parts of elk and red deer) and discuss the debatable points. But it is important, that all information is provable in scientific literature!--Altaileopard 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a distinct species?!

Again the paper of Ludt:

This study shows a very high probability for the existence of two different species of red deer with three subspecies in Asia and America (Eastern Red Deer) and four subspecies in Eurasia (Western Red Deer) and additional one or two primordial subspecies in Central Asia (Tarim group).

Ludt, Christian J. "Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of red deer (Cervus elaphus)" (pdf). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31 (2004) 1064–1083. Elsevier. Retrieved 2006-10-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Actually, this sentence does not say, that the primordial subspecies do not belong to the western red deer Cervus elaphus. So I would propose, to change the beginning:

The Central Asian Red Deer is a postulated species of Red Deer....

into

The Central Asian Red Deer is a primordial group of the Red deer subspecies (Cervus elaphus).

If you have provable! references which say anything else we have to discuss what to to. I have none and I found nothing, which is not to old!--Altaileopard 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies

All the chinese subspecies should not be included in the Tarim Group (Central Asian Red Deer)! According to Ludts paper there are only ....one or two primordial subspecies in Central Asia (Tarim group).

...The primordial Tarim group stands at the base of the red deer and is geographically isolated by the Takla Makan Desert to the East and the Pamir Mountains to the West. Genetically it is more related to the Western group, whereas its habitat is close to the N-Asia/Amer. group.

The chinese red deer are definitely included here in the eastern (wapiti) group:

The three subgroups of the Eastern group (North Asia/America, South-Asia, and East-Asia) are clearly defined.... ...This can be seen in the N-Asia/Amer. group with Cervus el. songaricus and sibericus as well as in the S-Asia group with Cervus el. kansuensis and macneilli which we were unable to differentiate.

If you have good refernces, which say something else, than we have to see what to do. Otherwise I will organise the article in this way. --Altaileopard 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to activate your email if you want to see the file...it is not yet in print, but is from Geist's work and is more recent than Ludt's, et al's DNA work. Ludt did not do DNA on every species and subspecies of Red Deer, Central Asian Red Deer, Elk and other related animals.--MONGO 15:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Now it is activated. If the file is not publicated yet, we should not use it in wikipedia, but I am curious about it and would be glad, if you can send it me.

You said Ludt did not sample all subspecies. Which of the general accepted subspecies or related deer species are you missing besides Cervus elaphus hanglu? Thanks and greetings.--Altaileopard 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have the Symposium on Red Deer Taxonomy from November 6-7, 2004 in Englmeng, Baviaria (Germany) from Christian Oswald. Christian Oswald has a Cervid Museum over in Germany. Anyhow, I am having problems uploading this to wikipedia. I have it on pdf, but wikipedia (or my computer) will not let me upload to wikipedia. Here is what I have:

Symposium on Red Deer Taxonomy 6./7. November 2004, Englmeng, Bavaria Englmeng 15, D-85560 Ebersberg, Germany Phone +49 (0)8094 / 93 63 / Telefax + (0)8094 / 9364 christian.oswald@t-online.de / http://www.christian-oswald.de

This will hopefully clear up the ambiguities as far as Central Asian Red Deer. Both Christian Oswald and Dr. Valerius Geist both discuss that Central Asian Red Deer includes: Shou (wallichi), MacNeill's deer (macneilli), Hangul (hanglu), Bactrian deer (bactrianus), and Yarkand deer (yarkandensis). However, it did seem to suggest that highland and lowland deer could be two distinct species not belonging to either European Red Deer or Wapitis. I will leave it up to you guys. .--Dlc_73 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

merge

affinis is not listed in MSW3, the default taxonomy for mammal species taxonomy for Wikipedia. In fact, all listed subspecies are listed therein as subspecies or synonyms of such of the Red Deer. This article should be merged into Red Deer. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is accurate, then merge. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Asian red deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612095752/http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra%20deer.pdf to http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/pitra%20deer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)