Talk:Ethiopian lion

Genetics

@BhagyaMani: As per genetic tests, the Ethiopian lion is mixed between the clades P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, thus rendering this recent classification by the Cat Specialist Group over-simplistic, so there is no point treating this lion as being P. l. leo. Leo1pard (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How about providing a ref for CatSG's classification being 'over-simplistic'? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Genetic tests are enough to do that, as it was the case for previously recognized subspecies. Ethiopian lions appear to be related to both Asiatic and Southern African lions, and the idea of P. l. leo is that ishould be closely related to the Asiatic lion, and that of P. l. melanochaita is that it should be related to Southern African lions, so the Ethiopian lion is an issue for only P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita being valid, just as the liger's nature is an issue for it being either Panthera leo or Panthera tigris. Leo1pard (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That comment is not a reference for CatSG's classification being 'over-simplistic' . And the liger not a species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If genetic tests cannot determine what is or what is not a valid subspecies, then we'd be stuck with the old trinoma. Indeed the liger is not a species, just as we do not have only 2 genetic clades for lions in Africa, unlike what that 2017 document suggests. Leo1pard (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I remember to have asked already before: what has the shopping mall trinoma to do with taxonomy? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And yes, this has been my argument too: as long as new ssp. name for lion in Ethiopia is not clear, to use the last recent accepted one: leo as used in 2016 by RL assessors. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

One was given, P. l. roosevelti, and it is neither purely P. l. leo nor P. l. melanochaita. You asked what do the trinoma have to do with taxonomy? Well, what does this document have to do with validity, then? Leo1pard (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This document by CatSG2017 has been edited by the currently leading taxonomists of the CatSG, people who have published several articles about felid taxonomy and genetics in past years. The revision team comprised 20+ people. So it is indeed the presently valid classification. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita are not clades, they are proposed subspecies. The fact that we are referring to subspecies means recognition of some admixture. Most lions do in fact fall neatly into one of the two, reflecting the deep historical division in modern lions, but it is inevitable that there will be overlap in contact zones. If there wasn't we'd be talking about two species (which was proposed for tigers).

As it is the recent studies universally agree about the primary division. There are other splits that could justify recognition of 4-6 subspecies, but the different studies currently give slightly different splits. The dual split works pretty well because there are only a few contentious areas, notably Ethiopia and Uganda. Ethiopia appears to be a mixture, while Uganda largely lacks data. The terminology is important, because it is needed for scientific precision, but we should beware of getting too hung up about the uncertain areas, as the science is uncertain. Given the debate on what constitutes a species (biological, phylogenetic concepts etc) we are never going to have absolute clarity on subspecies.   Jts1882 | talk  12:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jts1882, for an important clarification!! Bertola et al. (2016) already pointed out, that admixture in Somalia can be explained by the captive lions used for samples, namely 3; and in this region also by translocations of – perhaps undocumented 'problem' – animals in the past. You may also want to read Dubach et al. (2013) who suggested a slightly similar subdivision as Bertola et al. (2016), though not as finely tuned. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Dubach et al (2013) is the one splitting the eastern lions into those west (Uganda, NE Kenya) and east (SE Kenya, SE Africa) of the eastern rift valley. Bertola at al (2016) makes the split between east-southern and northeast. Barnett et al (2014) has another division. Each seem to be the basis for a subspecies split, but the contradictions make consensus difficult, which I think is why they went for two.   Jts1882 | talk  13:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

With one notable difference: Dubach et al. (2013) used only samples of wild lions. Bertola et al. (2016) also included samples of captive lions and museum specimen. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Different definitions of 'subspecies' exist, let us have a look at them:

1) Zmescience: "A widely accepted definition is that of Mayr and Ashlock (1991:43): "A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.""

2) Merriam-Webster: "Definition of subspecies

a subdivision of a species: such as

a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs b : a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species c : subgroup 1 a political subspecies."

3) Dictionary.com: "A subdivision of a species, especially a geographical or ecological subdivision."

4) Britannica.com: "Subspecies are groups at the first stage of speciation; individuals of different subspecies sometimes interbreed, but they produce many sterile male offspring. At the second stage are incipient species, or semispecies; individuals of these groups rarely interbreed, and all their male offspring are sterile. Natural selection separates incipient species into sibling species, which do not mate ..."

Putting all these together, groups of creatures are subspecies if they differ geographically and genetically. Because the CSG subsumed lions in East Africa to P. l. melanochaita, but at the same time, genetic tests demonstrate that the East African country of Ethiopia, for which abyssinica or roosevelti was named, is where P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita overlap, the classification is in trouble. Leo1pard (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is in trouble, more that it is fluid. The difference in subspecies definitions suggest that it will remain fluid even when much more is known.   Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References