A couple new species descriptions:
1. A new Sorex shrew described from Honduras. The description is based on principal component analysis of just two available specimens; my understanding is that it’s very bad methodology. Personally I think descriptions of new species done without comparing nuclear DNA shouldn’t be accepted for publication anymore, unless it’s something strikingly different. I also think that all species in S. veraepacis species group (veraepacis, chiapensis, ibarrai, madrensis, mutabilis and the new cruzi) are in fact conspecific, but wouldn’t mind being proven wrong.
2. A new mouse lemur, Microcebus jonahi, described. It is the larger of the two species occurring around Mananara, and the only one near the coast there, so if you’ve seen a mouse lemur on your trip to “Aye Aye Island” that’s what it was. The authors compared it only with other species in that part of Madagascar, so it might be conspecific with some species from other parts of the island. Notably, the authors found M. mittermeyeri to be conspecific with M. lehilahystara. I expect some other recently described lemurs to be eventually proven conspecific as well, as many of those descriptions were extremely lousy.
-
Updated Mammalwatching Checklist @ August 2020
Jon Hall, , General Mammal Watching, mammal list, taxonomy, 8
The latest version of my global mammal checklist is available here and also on Scythebill too. This update differs a...
-
Spain, Portugal & Formentera
vdinets, , General Mammal Watching, Portugal, Spain, 0
We are unexpectedly going to the Iberian Peninsula in June-July, hopefully for 4 weeks. Does anybody have any kind...
-
Pallas Cat video
Lars Michael, , General Mammal Watching, Pallas Cat Birding Beijing, 0
I’m new here, at least in the forum as I’ve been following the site for some time. I found...
-
Whale trips, Sable Island and the world
John Fox, , General Mammal Watching, Bottlenose Whale, Sable Island, whalewatching, 7
Hi all I just found out about a trip this June to the gulley east of Sable Island. They...
-
Bat ID Help
Alan D, , General Mammal Watching, 4
Hi all. I have some bat ID’s I am hoping to get some help with. All of these pictures...
-
Join These African Wildlife Webinars
Jon Hall, , General Mammal Watching, 2
For most of us all travel is virtual right now, so why not join these webinar’s from the Leadership...
-
seeing wolves
stevebabbs, , General Mammal Watching, 0
Hi all Having dipped wolves in Spain earlier this year, I’m pondering another attempt, before too long. The question...
-
Against the Tide: Currents Keep Dolphins Apart; Study Finds Invisible Oceanographic Factors That Keep Populations Separate
Jon Hall, , General Mammal Watching, 0
ScienceDaily (Mar. 24, 2011) — Conservationists from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the American Museum of Natural History, and other...
Subscribe to mammalwatching.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Venkat Sankar on Update on Bobcats in Tucson Arizona
- Venkat Sankar on Update on Bobcats in Tucson Arizona
- Charles Hood on Update on Bobcats in Tucson Arizona
- Bud Lensing on Update on Bobcats in Tucson Arizona
- Zarek Cockar on Rwanda
It is a shame so much of mammal taxonomy is dominated by heavy splitters, which completely swamps the good work done by a less vocal group…. It doesn’t help that some of the more influential books (Lynx Edicions….) don’t seem to take taxonomy serious at all. I am looking forward to anyone taking up a checklist and evidence-based approach like is done with birds….
The more splitting it is the less value it will be of each species. In money-based economy it is called inflation. Generally, I find a species is not a species until it is proved a real species (I am well aware that it can be terrific difficult to prove that a taxon is a valid (biological) species). 11 species of Klipspringers in the Lynx handbook is one of the most ridiculous examples of splitting. Wonder what our other fellow mammal species would say of Homo sapiens, should at least be 5-6 species of Homo today…
/Eric Renman (Vallentuna, Sweden)
Homo sapiens taxonomy is a very politically charged subject, as you can imagine. Linnaeus described 4 subspecies; in reality there are over 100, plus, of course, lots of hybrid swarms. But there’s not enough genetic difference to justify splitting into species, unless you use really lousy approaches popular among primatologists. Also, all humans except Khoisan peoples are technically hybrids (with Neanderthals, Denisovians, etc.), so it’s all complicated. One consequence of all this is that you can’t have H. sapiens on your life list unless you’ve been to some Khoisan village in Africa 🙂
Meanwhile, the next page in African golden wolf saga: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa080/5881689?redirectedFrom=fulltext
On using PCA and other such analyses in taxonomy, there are three factors that make it’s use in taxonomy far from ideal:
– Colinearity, these models assume that the different predictor variables put in the model (e.g. skull measurements), are independent from each other, which in most taxonomic cases they are off-course not.
– Uneven sample size of the different groups, the higher sample sizes and more evenly distribution, the better the chance that the model actually works
– Small sample sizes, it is advised that the sample size of each group must be larger than the number of predictor variables, otherwise the risk of a false positive increases.
Finally, many papers use purely qualitative measures and just interpret graphs. They don’t do any follow-up analyses to test whether found differences are actually significant or not…
There is a pretty good paper on this here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440311002263?casa_token=Y9EVmrSzMTAAAAAA:ig9muHXeiqfkLq6lPHrvra1DitYhe6drOh-OcHgbMO05lDfeffVLvQhpxNMQe_rPvPtMQToXZac