A French veterinarian named Dr. Sauvel shot this kouprey in Cambodia. He made a trophy out of the horns and displayed them at his home in France. The French zoologist Achille Urbain discovered the horns at Sauvel's home and thought they might represent a new species. He would later use this discovery to confirm that a wild cow brought over from Cambodia was actually a unique species, which he called the kouprey and named Bos sauveli in honor of the veterinarian who shot this specimen.
Some people might be a little surprised with the findings of a recent study that showed that the s0-called red wolf is nothing more than a coyote with some wolf ancestry. Because the Eastern US is full of coyotes with wolf ancestry, one might be open to questioning the validity of the red wolf as a unique species– much less an endangered one.
I think the bulk of the evidence shows that the red wolf as we know it now is a contrived species. The so-called red wolves of earlier times may have been the original eastern population of coyote that was exterminated along with the wolves that were native to the same region. And the so-called Eastern wolf species has been found to be a wolf with some coyote ancestry. What we’re calling an Eastern coyote today is primarily Western coyote with some wolf and dog crossed in.
Both of these animals are derived from hybrids that existed in the wild. The wolves of the western Great Lakes region had coyote genes introduced into their populations 600 to 900 years ago, but the vast majority of these animals would not have existed had Western man not killed off all the wolves in the East.
As difficult as it is for people to accept, the Eastern wolf and the red wolf likely are not valid species. One is a wolf with some coyote genes, and the other is a coyote with some wolf genes.
However, there have been cases in which an animal was declared a hybrid, but then later studies revealed actually to be a unique species after all.
Probably the best example of a hybrid origin being falsified in recent years is the kouprey.
The kouprey is a wild cattle species that lives primarily in Cambodia, but it can also be found in adjacent parts of Laos and Thailand.
If you’ve never heard of a kouprey, it’s because they are very rare, and they were only described to science in 1937. A French zoologist named Achille Urbain discovered some unusual horns that were mounted as a hunting trophy in the home of a veterinarian who had worked in Cambodia. After examining the horns closely, Urbain thought that they might come from a new species. One animal wound up at the Vincennes Zoo in Paris, which Urbain used as his holotype specimen. Later, Harvard zoologist Harold Jefferson Coolidge would elevate the kouprey to its own genus, which he called Novibos (“the new ox.”)
It was the last of the cattle species to have been documented by science, and it was one of the last large species of land mammal to have been documented.
For decades, it was treated as an enigmatic species of wild cattle. The Cambodian people recognized the uniqueness of this animal, which occurred almost exclusively within their nation’s borders, and they declared the kouprey to be their national animal.
Lots of romance and national identity was tied up in the kouprey.
Then, in 2006, Northwestern University biologist Gary Galbreath co-authored an article that revealed that the kouprey was nothing more than a cross between the zebu (indicus domestic cattle species) and the banteng, a much more common species of cattle that is native to Southeast Asia and also exists as a domestic animal. This zebu/banteng hybrid then went wild in the Cambodian forest.
Galbreath’s study compared mitochondrial DNA fromCambodian banteng and two captive kouprey from a Cambodian wildlife rescue facility. This study merely examined the cytochrome b gene, but it found that the two kouprey were actually very similar to the banteng.
This study went out into the popular press as declaring the kouprey an entirely made-up species.
However, not everyone was so convinced.
Galbreath’s claim was a major affront to a major paradigm within bovine taxonomy.
So it needed a more in depth analysis to see if the hybrid origin theory for the kouprey was actually true.
Two French zoologists, Alexandre Hassanin and Anne Ropiquet, analyzed three mitochondrial DNA regions and five nuclear DNA fragments that represented 4582 nucleotides. They found that kouprey have nuclear DNA that is quite distinct from banteng or zebu, and the reason why Galbreath received such a close overlap between Cambodian banteng and kouprey is that the banteng of Cambodia have hybridized with kouprey. Somewhere along the line, a domestic banteng bull mated with a kouprey cow, and the descendants of these hybrids comprise a large proportion of the banteng in Cambodia. A fossilized skull of a kouprey was also discovered that was dated to the Pleistocene or early Holocene– well before indicus cattle were domesticated.
Galbreath has since rejected his initial findings.
This study that looked at nuclear DNA in the kouprey looked at much smaller part of the genome than the study that found no evidence for an Eastern wolf species and found the red wolf to be predominantly coyote in origin.
Yet this study very quickly discovered that the kouprey has very unique genetic markers.
This study very clearly falsified the hypothesis that the kouprey was derived from a hybrid between indicus cattle and the banteng.
That has not happened with the red wolf or the Eastern wolf. Indeed, the study that found them to be hybrid in origin was perhaps the most in depth analysis of wolf and coyote nuclear DNA ever performed.
It is possible to falsify the hypothesis that organisms are hybrid in origin. In the case of the red wolf and the Eastern wolf, it has not been.
But in the case of the kouprey, it clearly has.
***
I would be remiss if I didn’t say that no one has seen a wild kouprey since 1983.
They may very well be extinct in the wild.
So I guess it’s good to know that this animal actually was a valid species.
But that would have been nicer to have known while they were still relatively common.
it’s possible hybrids are more common in the wild than previously thought. Came across this http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0023173 — Gene Flow and Hybridization between Numerically Imbalanced Populations of Two Duck Species in the Falkland Islands. And there are other instances of hybrids. It may be that, especially with small populations and where this population intersects with another species to which it is related closely enought to produce viable offspring that hybrids do occur, even in clearly distinct species. I’m not saying the red wolf is real — i think it’s a case of wishful thinking (and in fact, the original name of canis niger may have been more accurate of a now extinct real wolf subspecies) but the Eastern wolf may be a different matter. How much “uniqueness” in their genetic makeup compared to other wolves may be relevant. Even if they are now “part coyote”, they may still present a unique genetic group worthy of preservation. I think sometimes in conservation circles, there is a similar insistance on “purity” as with dog breeds — if there are no longer “original” tigers in Bali or Java, what would it hurt to reintroduce some of those “mixed breed” zoo animals? is it really MORE important to insist on purity in subspecies than to preserve the species as a whole? Would it end the world to have African Lion genes mix with those of the Asiatic (in Wikapedia it certainly is portrayed that way – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion#Inbreeding_concerns). It might have been better if there were enough Asiatic lions not to need “help”, but since that isn’t the case, why condemn a hybrid or two?
Peggy Richter
Hybridization is very common in the wild with wide ranging species. Dolphin species regularly hybridize– as do ducks and other waterfowl. Intergeneric hybrids are not unheard of in either ducks or dolphins.
However, I have to say that I’m not convinced that there are several species of wolf. In the Old World, there are golden jackals and wolves– both vary in size quite a bit. In the New World, we have wolves and coyotes– and the same thing exists. Right now, the golden jackal’s genome is being sequenced so we can see how wolves, golden jackals, and coyotes actually fit together. But in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s been the rule that there has been a bigger wolf and a smaller quasi-wolf. It’s been that way for millions of years. The ancestral wolf was coyote-sized, and it licked the boot of Xenocyon. When xenocyon became extinct in Eurasia, the ancestral wolf became the larger modern wolf.
There is evidence of what are likely wolf-like coyotes in North America, but it’s a pretty tough case to make that they are connected to the Florida black wolf or the red wolf or whatever.
well, there was Canis dirus who was bigger than the modern wolf and who co existed with boty Lupus and coyotes. I don’t think that DNA sequence has been done for C. Dirus, but the anatomy appears to have been C. Lupus “writ large”. So I’m not sure that one can say that in N. America the situation was the same as where Xenocyon existed. (by the way, have they determined that Xenocyon is ancestral to the “painted dog” or to Canis?) It may well be that Dirus kept C. Lupis “smaller”, but given the propensity of canids to hybridize, one does wonder if there weren’t simply a whole range from Dirus to Western Coyote in size and hybrids here and there throughout. I’m also not sure what the competition with hyenas (IIRC, these evolved in Europe/Africa and briefly colonized N. America) had to do with expansion (or lack thereof) of the wolf types. It’s clear that an Arabian wolf differs from say, a Tundra wolf, but which of all the wolf “types” are subspecies and which are just “local populations” depends on if one is a lumper or a splitter. given the variation in dogs who are “all one”, it’s clear that the canids have a lot of variation on the theme available to them.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure that “canis rufus / niger” is extinct. I don’t know if attempts to “reintroduce” a recreation / look alike are valid or not. A wolf like canid belongs as part of the N. American East coast fauna. If the coy/wolf is the closest one can come, maybe preservation is justified — and to hope a new “subspecies” will eventually develop. I don’t live in the area, so can’t say.
Peggy Richter.
I think I remember reading somewhere that only dire wolves and coyotes were found at the Rancho La Brea tar pits.
That means that modern wolves and dire wolves generally didn’t live in the same areas.
We have no DNA studies on dire wolves, even though it might be possible to get ancient DNA from some of the samples. If we did that, it would be interesting to see where they fit.
The current thinking is there is a coyote-New World Canis lineage that includes the coyote and probably some “wolves,” like Canis edwardii. At one time it was thought that edwardii was the ancestor of the red wolf. It may have been an early wolf-like coyote.
The dire wolf is thought to have evolved in what is now the Central US from a wolf called Armbruster’s wolf, Canis armbrusteri. Armbruster’s wolf is thought to have evolved from Canis chihliensis, a wolf that was found in China, and is now considered the ancestor of Canis mosbachensis and the modern wolf.
There is a lot of debate about when wolves and coyotes split– which is further compounded with wolf and coyote hybridization in the wild.
But if we had a DNA sequence from a dire wolf, it might become clearer. If we had something like a dire wolf genome– which we won’t get in my lifetime– we might be able to see if dire wolves contributed to modern wolves. I suspect that dire wolves were fully interfertile with modern wolves, and they might have contributed a few genes to modern North American wolves.
There was a discovery of wolves in Alaska that lived during the Pleistocene that had some dire wolf features. They were found to be the same species as the modern wolf, but they had much more powerful jaws. I call the subspecies the Alaskan bone crusher. These wolves were not dire wolves, but they were suspiciously similar to them. They were also found a long way from dire wolf range, which was the southern and central US to Peru. But its possible that wolves could have evolved dire wolf adaptations several times in history.
It’s a good question how dire wolves were related to modern wolves.
I think I remember reading somewhere that only dire wolves and coyotes were found at the Rancho La Brea tar pits.
That means that modern wolves and dire wolves generally didn’t live in the same areas.
We have no DNA studies on dire wolves, even though it might be possible to get ancient DNA from some of the samples. If we did that, it would be interesting to see where they fit.
The current thinking is there is a coyote-New World Canis lineage that includes the coyote and probably some “wolves,” like Canis edwardii. At one time it was thought that edwardii was the ancestor of the red wolf. It may have been an early wolf-like coyote.
The dire wolf is thought to have evolved in what is now the Central US from a wolf called Armbruster’s wolf, Canis armbrusteri. Armbruster’s wolf is thought to have evolved from Canis chihliensis, a wolf that was found in China, and is now considered the ancestor of Canis mosbachensis and the modern wolf.
There is a lot of debate about when wolves and coyotes split– which is further compounded with wolf and coyote hybridization in the wild.
But if we had a DNA sequence from a dire wolf, it might become clearer. If we had something like a dire wolf genome– which we won’t get in my lifetime– we might be able to see if dire wolves contributed to modern wolves. I suspect that dire wolves were fully interfertile with modern wolves, and they might have contributed a few genes to modern North American wolves.
There was a discovery of wolves in Alaska that lived during the Pleistocene that had some dire wolf features. They were found to be the same species as the modern wolf, but they had much more powerful jaws. I call the subspecies the Alaskan bone crusher. These wolves were not dire wolves, but they were suspiciously similar to them. They were also found a long way from dire wolf range, which was the southern and central US to Peru. But its possible that wolves could have evolved dire wolf adaptations several times in history.
It’s a good question how dire wolves were related to modern wolves.
I think that Canis niger was a subspecies of Canis lupus. It was found throughout the Eastern US. Shoemaker described them in Pennsylvania, and it does not compare very well with “red wolves,” except that it was about the same size as the animals we’re calling red wolves today. It was found in Pennsylvania and Florida, and probably other places, too. But it doesn’t correspond to the red wolf. Shoemaker wrote that the wolves of West Virginia were almost always bigger than the Pennsyvlania black wolf– and were usually gray. West Virginia supposedly had only red wolves– which I think is a load of crap– but if the red wolf existed as is commonly stated, the red wolf– black and red– would have been found from Pennsylvania to Florida to Texas.
Shoemaker mentions a little brown wolf that barks, and later says that this little brown barking wolf is found in North Carolina. He describes it as being much smaller than other wolves.
This little brown barking wolf sounds to me like the original Eastern coyote– which some authorities at the time called the “red wolf.”
But I think the red wolf largely existed in the imagination rather than reality.
Apparently, Canis niger was a subspecies of wolf that almost always came in black and was a bit smaller than typical Eastern timber wolves. It is almost certainly extinct.
C.Lupus has been found at La Brea although in much smaller numbers than the Dire wolf. Although probably they hunted different animals (Dire wolves may have specialized in mammoths and giant bison, etc, whereas lupus probably hunted the smaller deer, etc. And one may have been predominantly “plains” and the other “foothills/mountains”. It’s hard to say.
For some reason, it seems that European and African animals (past and present) tend to get more studies on them than those of the Americas. For every study I’ve seen on wolves, I see 5 or 6 on African lions (the Asian lions are equally ignored). It’s very wierd. With all the bones of the Dire wolf, one would think SOME DNA would be recovered. But I’ve never even heard of anyone attempting it. I may have missed it, but I don’t think so. The problem with wolves is that so many HAVE been exterminated — what remains may well be “pocket” DNA groups that give a false image of what was a vastly more varied species. ‘little brown barking wolf” sounds like a pretty good description of a coyote.
Peggy Richter.
[…] These sorts of errors would be less likely to make now, but there is still much we don’t know. Keep in mind that much of the scientific establishment still regards the red wolf as a valid species, even though the most sophisticated genetic analyses seem to point to it being coyote with some wolf ancestry. It has only recently been confirmed that the kouprey is a distinct species and not a hybrid with the zebu and the banteng. […]