A rapid tool to discriminate rhino horn and ivory samples from different mammalian species based on the combination of near-infrared reflection (NIR) spectroscopy and chemometrics was evaluated. In this study, samples from the Australian Museum mammalogy collection were scanned between 950 nm and 1650 nm using a handheld spectrophotometer and analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). An overall correct classification rate of 73.5% was obtained for the classification of all samples. This study demonstrates the potential of NIR spectroscopy coupled with chemometrics as a means of a rapid, nondestructive classification technique of horn and ivory samples sourced from a museum. Near-infrared spectroscopy can be used as an alternative or complementary method in the detection of horn and ivory assisting in the combat of illegal trade and aiding the preservation of at-risk species.
Adopting the name Canis dingo for the Dingo to explicitly denote a species-level taxon separate from other canids was suggested by Crowther et al. (2014) as a means to eliminate taxonomic instability and contention. However, Jackson et al. (2017), using standard taxonomic and nomenclatural approaches and principles, called instead for continued use of the nomen C. familiaris for all domestic dogs and their derivatives, including the Dingo. (This name, C. familiaris, is applied to all dogs that derive from the domesticated version of the Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, based on nomenclatural convention.) The primary reasons for this call by Jackson et al. (2017) were: (1) a lack of evidence to show that recognizing multiple species amongst the dog, including the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, was necessary taxonomically, and (2) the principle of nomenclatural priority (the name familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, antedates dingo Meyer, 1793). Overwhelming current evidence from archaeology and genomics indicates that the Dingo is of recent origin in Australia and shares immediate ancestry with other domestic dogs as evidenced by patterns of genetic and morphological variation. Accordingly, for Smith et al. (2019) to recognise Canis dingo as a distinct species, the onus was on them to overturn current interpretations of available archaeological, genomic, and morphological datasets and instead show that Dingoes have a deeply divergent evolutionary history that distinguishes them from other named forms of Canis (including C. lupus and its domesticated version, C. familiaris). A recent paper by Koepfli et al. (2015) demonstrates exactly how this can be done in a compelling way within the genus Canis—by demonstrating deep evolutionary divergence between taxa, on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, using data from multiple genetic systems. Smith et al. (2019) have not done this; instead they have misrepresented the content and conclusions of Jackson et al. (2017), and contributed extraneous arguments that are not relevant to taxonomic decisions. Here we dissect Smith et al. (2019), identifying misrepresentations, to show that ecological, behavioural and morphological evidence is insufficient to recognise Dingoes as a separate species from other domestic dogs. We reiterate: the correct binomial name for the taxon derived from Gray Wolves (C. lupus) by passive and active domestication, including Dingoes and other domestic dogs, is Canis familiaris. We are strongly sympathetic to arguments about the historical, ecological, cultural, or other significance of the Dingo, but these are issues that will have to be considered outside of the more narrow scope of taxonomy and nomenclature.
Abstract. The Australian Museum (AM) Mammal Collection represents one of the most significant world collections from the Australo-Pacific region, with over 50,000 mammal specimens of some 650 species from the region. The Collection contains about 882 primary (name bearing) and secondary mammal type specimens, representing 210 proposed names (species and subspecies), 124 of which are currently recognized as valid taxa. All are of taxa originating from the Australian region, Indonesia, Melanesia and the south-west Pacific. The 205 primary type specimens comprise 145 holotype specimens (on which 149 names are based), seven lectotypes, two neotypes; 33 syntypes of 18 taxa; and 18 specimens suspected to be syntypes of 11 taxa. Primary type material of the 185 named taxa represent 4 monotremes, 62 marsupials, 2 canids, 9 cetaceans, 68 rodents and 40 bats. The 677 secondary type specimens comprise 659 paratypes, 15 paralectotypes, and three suspected paralectotypes. This is the first published list of non-fossil mammal types in the AM Collection since the publication of Krefft's catalogue in 1864. Individual accounts are presented discussing type status of 233 taxa by their originally proposed names, which includes taxa for which the type series has not been located since publication of the name. Registration data are given, with additional information not included in the published description, along with new information on many taxa proposed in the 19th century. Photographs of the primary type specimens of 43 taxa are provided, many of which are the first published images. New insights and a summary of current information is given for 14 taxa for which type material has not been located in world collections but we believe might have originally been lodged in the AM.Type material of seven taxa named by Krefft, Gray and Ramsay (all suspected junior synonyms), were identified in the AM Collection and are reported here for the first time since their original publication. The type series of many taxa proposed by Krefft and Ramsay are not fully defined and syntypes could remain unrecognized in the many institutions to which they extensively exchanged specimens during the 19th century. No nomenclatural actions are taken in this paper. *
Taxonomy is the science of the classification of living things and comprises two main processes, defining taxa and naming them. In relation to the taxonomy of the Dingo, the scientific name has been unstable for many years. It has been referred to as Canis familiaris, Canis familiaris dingo, Canis lupus familiaris, Canis lupus dingo or Canis dingo. The nomenclature, however, has become even more unstable in recent years with advocacy for the name Canis dingo by some authors in spite of a lack of morphological differentiation or interfertility between Dingo and Domestic Dog hybrids. As a result, there is a need to review the taxonomy of the Dingo with the aim of confirming its correct scientific name in order to promote stability. Using the most widely accepted species concepts, we reviewed the taxonomy of the Dingo by objectively dissecting each of the proposed arguments for recognising the Dingo as a distinct species. We conclude that the most appropriate taxonomic name to use for the Dingo is Canis familiaris, and that this binomial is the appropriate taxonomic name for all ancient and modern dog breeds, their hybrids and wild-living derivatives. It is important to highlight that correct taxonomy is an important part of on-ground conservation and management of wildlife. However, the taxonomy used as a basis for management decisions needs to be based on a consistent and evidence-based scientific approach and not other factors.
Fourteen sites occupied by Lagorchestes conspicillatus in the Northern Territory were examined from July to September 1986. The abundance of possible food items at each site was estimated by measuring the percentage cover of herbs, grasses and shrubs with foliage below one metre. Also recorded was the abundance of potential shelters, including grass tussocks, spinifex hummocks (Plectrachne and Triodia spp.) and low shrubs and trees. All sites possessed trees (more than 10 per ha) and shrubs (more than 5 per ha) together with more than 0.5% cover of green grass foliage. A model of suitable habitat was constructed using the 1986 results, and this was tested within the species' range in the Pilbara, Western Australia, and near Daly Waters in the Northern Territory in 1987. The abundance of L. conspicillatus was scored at control sites (sites with all features considered essential on the basis of 1986 data) and test sites (sites lacking 1-2 'essential' features). These data indicated that L, conspicillatus can occur at sites with as little as 0.2% cover of green grass provided there is more than 1.5% herb cover. Sites with no green grass (less than 0.2%) were usually not occupied. All sites occupied by L. conspicillatus had potentially suitable shelters, either shrubs, grass tussocks or spinifex hummocks within 50m of the feeding areas. Diet selection by L. conspicillatus during the 1986 and 1987 dry seasons was as follows: (a) herbs were eaten in preference to other food items except certain seeds; (b) grass formed at least 10% of faecal contents irrespective of herb cover; and (c) at sites with less than 0.5% herb cover the levels of grass in the faeces increased to compensate for the low availability of herbs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.