Cervus canadensis and C. elaphus: North American subspecies and evaluation of clinal extremes

• Autorzy: Schonewald C.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The distinctiveness of each extant North American subspecies of C. elaphus (Linnaeus, 1758) was tested using craniometric data. To provide a context for interpretation of these data, the distinctiveness of North American C. elaphus from Eurasian C. elaphus was reassessed from existing data and conclusions tested. Mor­phometry variations in size, shape, and sexual dimorphism of adult crania were analyzed using combined male-female and independent male and female principal component analyses. North American subspecies do not represent natural biogeogra- phic variation as earlier presumed. Posterior classification error was highest for subspecies, but was lowest for a set of 6 Operational Taxonomic Units that recognized C. elaphus-Olympic, C. e/apftus-northern California and Oregon, C. claphus-eastern Washington, C. elaphus-Rocky mountain and Cascade mountain, C, elaphus-Sas- katchewan and Manitoba, and C. elaphus-centra\ California. Males and females differed in their sizes, shapes and affinities to other populations. Intracontinental differences in the kind and amount of sexual dimorphism reinforced the importance of measuring and contrasting male and female features in phylogeographic analyses. Use of existing nomenclature as a blind guide for comparative systematica and ecology and for conservation undermines the quality of research and conservation for C. ela­phus in North America. Previous arguments for a single-species circumgiobal cline do not take into account sexual dimorphism, behavior and reproduction. Major interconti­nental differences do exist between clinal extremes in behavior, in cranial size and sexual dimorphism in addition to semilethal Fi hybridization. All suggest C. elaphus and North American Cervus are different species. Whether the transition is smooth, whether stepped transitions occur, and whether "canadensis" correctly represents the species' distribution need verification.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Cervus elaphus; conservation; phylogeography; morphometry; craniometry; Cervus canadensis; North America

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 1994
• Tom: 39
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.431-452,fig.

Twórcy

autor

Schonewald C.

• University of California, Davis, CA, USA 95616-8576

Bibliografia

• Ahlen I. 1965. Studies on the red deer, Ceruus elaphus L., in Scandinavia (taxonomy and osteology of prehistoric and recent populations). Viltrevy, Swedish Wildlife 3: 90-176.
• Avise J. C. 1989. Gene trees and organismal histories: A phylogenetic approach to population biology. Evolution 43: 1192-1208.
• Avise J. C., Ankney C. D. and Nelson W. S. 1990. Mitochondrial gene trees and the evolutionary relationship of mallard and black ducks. Evolution 44: 1109-1119.
• Baccus R., Ryman N., Smith M. H., Reuterwall C. and Cameron D. 1983. Genetic variability and differentiation of large grazing mammals. J. Mammal. 64: 109-120.
• Batcheler C. L. and McLennan M. J. 1977. Craniometric study of allometry adaptation and hybridism of red deer (Ceruus elaphus scotticus, L) and wapiti (C. e. netsoni, Bailey) in Fiordland, New Zealand. N. Z. Ecol. Soc. Proc. 24: 55-75.
• Bailey V. 1935. A new name for the Rocky Mountain elk. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 48: 187-190.
• Bryant L. D. and Maser C. 1982. Classification and distribution. [In: Elk of North America. J. W. Thomas and D. E. Toweil), eds], StackpoSe Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 1-59.
• Bubenik A. B. 1982. Physiology. [In: Elk of North America. J. W. Thomas and D. E. Toweill, eds). Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: 125-179.
• Buechner M., Schonewa I, d-Cox C., Sauvajot R. and Wilcox B. A. 1992. Cross-boundary issues for national Parks: what works "on the ground"? Environ. Manage. 16: 799-809.
• Bureau of Land Management, 1986. The tule elk in California. 8th Annual Report to Congress. Cameron A. G. and Vyse E. R. 1978. Heterozygosity in Yellowstone Park elk, Ceruus canadensis. Biochem. Genet. 16: 651-657.
• Caughley G. 1971. An investigation of hybridization between free ranging wapiti and red deer in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Sci. 144: 993-1008.
• Dolan J. M., Jr 1988. A deer of many lands: A guide to the subspecies of the red deer Ceruus elaphus L. Zoonooz 62: 4-34.
• Dratch P. A. 1983. Genetic subdivision in Scottish red deer and North American wapiti. Unpubl. Ph. D. thesis, Univ. Edinburgh, Scotland: 1-151.
• Dratch P. A. 1986. A marker for red deer-wapiti hybrids. Proc. New Zealand Soc. Anim. Production 46: 179-182.
• Dratch P. A. and Gyllensten U. 1985. Genetic differentiation of red deer and North Americai elk {wapiti). Royal Soc. New Zealand, Bull. 22: 37-40.
• Geist V. 1991. Elk Country. NorthWord Press Inc., Minocqua, Wisconsin, U.S.: 1-175.
• Guthrie R. D. 1966. The extinct wapiti of Alaska and Yukon Territory. Can. J. Zool. 44: 47-57.
• Gyllensten U., Ryman N., Reuterwall C. and Dratch P. 1983. Genetic differentiation in four Eurtpean subspecies of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.}. Heredity 5: 561-580.
• Houston D. B., Schreiner E. G. and Moorhead B. B. 1990. Elk in Olympic National Park: will they persist over time? Natural Areas Journal 10: 6-11.
• Houston D. B, 1982. The northern Yellowstone elk: Ecology and management. MacMillan Publ Co., New York: 1-474.
• Hutton D. A. 1972. Variation in the skulls and antlers of wapiti (Cervus elaphus nelsoni Bailey). A. S, thesis, Univ. Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: 1-139.
• Kucera J. F. 1991. Genetic variability in tule elk. Calif. Fish and Game 77: 70-78.
• Lowe V, P. W. and Gardiner A. S. 1974. A re-examination of the subspecies of red deer (Orvus elaphus) with particular reference to the stocks in Britain. J. Zool., Lond. 174: 185-201.
• Lowe V. P. W. and Gardiner A. S. 1989. Are the New and Old World wapitis (Cervus canadeisis) conspecific with red deer (Cervus elaphus)? J. Zool., Lond, 218: 51-58.
• Mayr E. 1988. Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Har/ard University Press, Cambridge, Masssachusetts: 1-564.
• Mayr E., Linsley E. G. and Usinger, R. L. 1953. Methods and principles of systematic zoeogy. McGraw-Hill, New York: 1-328.
• McCorquodale S. M., Eberhardt L. E, and Sargeant G. A. 1989. Antler characteristics in a colonzing elk population. J. Wildl. Manage. 53: 618-621.
• McCullough D. R. 1969. The tule elk: Its history, behavior, and ecology. Univ. of California Publ. iool. Univ. California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 88: 1-209.
• Merriam C. H. 1897. Cervus roosevelti, a new elk from the Olympics. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washingtoi 11: 271-275.
• Merriam C. H. 1905. A new elk from California, Cervus nannodes. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washingtoi 18: 23-26.
• Nei M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Am. Nat. 106: 283-292.
• Nelson E. W. 1902. A new species of elk from Arizona. Bull. American Museum of Natural Histcy 6: 1-12.
• O'Brien S. J. and Mayr E. 1991. Bureaucratic mischief: Recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science 251: 1187-1188.
• SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide, release 6.03, Cary, NC.
• Schonewald-Cox C., Chambers S. M., MacBryde B. and Thomas W. L. 1983. Genetics and Obser­vation, Benjamin/Cummings, Inc. London: 1-722.
• Schonewald-Cox C. M., Bayless J. W. and Schonewald J. 1985. Cranial morphometry of Pacific oast elk (Cervus elaphus). J. Mammal. 66: 63-74.
• Schonewald-Cox C. M. and Bayless J. W. 1986. The boundary model: a geographical analysis of deign and conservation of nature reserves. Biol. Conserv, 38: 305-322.
• Schonewald-Cox C, 1994, Protection of biological diversity: missing connection between science and management. [In: Biological diversity: Problems and challenges, S. K. Majumdar, F. J. Brenna-, J. E, Lovich, J. F. Shalles and E. W. Miller, eds]. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton PA: 170-183.