Ovis. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Ovis orientalis 74824
Taxonomic Split 74728
(Submetido em 20-08-2020)
|
|
dividido em |
|
Comentários
no preference here
These changes are fine with me, but I'm not convinced of their (clearly politically motivated) arguments regarding the mouflon on Cyprus. Below, CYM is Cyprus, EUM is the European mouflon, and the rest of the colored tips are all domestic sheep. So... some of the domestic sheep are more closely related to the mouflon on Cyprus, but the Cyprus mouflon are a different species? Right.
@bobby23
I agree with the taxonomical remarks and with the proposed solution. Phylogenetic trees may tell different stories depending on sampling bias, used markers, adopted molecular models, algorithms, etc... As a consequence, different trees were produced and, actually, there is no obvious agreement on the domestic origin of the European mouflon. But waiting for a comprehensive genome-wide analysis, whether to adopt O. aries musimon or O. gmelini musimon is a matter of choice. So the proposed change is fully acceptable.
@jwidness I agree that the classification of the Cyprus sheep is problematic and likely have some underlying motivations. Do you like it would be more accurate to list them as a subspecies of Ovis aries on iNaturalist? This is something important to decide beforehand because in the current set-up the sheep on Cyprus would represent the majority of O. gmelini observations (almost everything else is either a European Mouflon or a Urial under O. orientalis).
Putting it under gmelini is totally fine with me. For sure the situation is complicated and mitogenomes don't tell the whole story. Given the horn morphology of the Cyprus animals though, I think gmelini ancestry is pretty reasonable, I just think the tree they presented doesn't make a good case for it.
Can we revisit this? IUCN has also processed these changes and has maps we can use. The next MDD will have the same listings as IUCN.
Of course! I will download the IUCN maps and update the atlases as needed.
EDIT: I see you already did the former, @jwidness. Thank you. I will update the atlases.
Committed.
@jwidness do you think it is worth adding Ovis gmelini × vignei (Alborz Red Sheep) as a hybrid taxon since the two species have such a large naturally-occurring hybrid zone? Some observations currently at the rank of Ovis have been attributed to it specifically. I cannot relocate the source, but I recall reading that Alborz Red Sheep can be identified by the shape of a mature ram's horns.
A reasonable concern is that the rank would be misused: the majority of observations that have been moved back up to Ovis legitimately cannot be attributed to any specific species and to attribute them to Ovis gmelini × vignei would be equally inaccurate. It can be difficult to convey that some observations are best left at genus.
I thought about asking you the same thing. I think the trouble is that at least according to Rezaei et al. 2010, mtDNA clade is independent of phenotype in hybrid zones. So I'm not sure that photos can be definitively said to be hybrids rather than either of the parent species.
That's another good point. Maybe we should wait on it unless someone expresses explicit interest in having it integrated and reevaluate it then. Does that sound like a good plan?
Sure
@loarie @jwidness @jakob @scandura @lancillotto @ldacosta
Thoughts on this potential split? It would bring us closer to the MDD's taxonomy. The only discrepancy would be recognizing the name Ovis gmelini instead of Ovis orientalis, but they generally represent the same species concept anyways. (The reason for the intentional discrepancy is described above, listed as item No. 2).
O. a. musimon is included in the split because most iNat users seem to have been treating it as a synonym of O. orientalis when the consensus is to treat it as a subspecies of Domestic Sheep (O. aries). It ensures observation data is not lost and the concept of what a "European Mouflon" is consistent.
I have made Atlases for all output taxa. The only thing left to do would be to split the IUCN distribution map polygons for O. orientalis into two: one for O. gmelini and one for O. vignei. I would rather do so once I've received feedback. (Editing the maps can take a long time, and I'd rather wait and see what others think before taking on that time commitment).