Response to Janecka et al. 2017

Abstract

RE: Response to range-wide snow leopard phylogeography supports three subspecies In response to Janecka et al. (2017), we welcome this much-needed study on the phylogeography of the snow leopard. Gathering and producing a data set of this size and quality on such an elusive species has clearly taken a longterm and large-scale collaborative international effort which should not, in any sense, be underestimated. The genetic data will undoubtedly benefit both scientific understanding and inform future conservation management of the species. It is, however, unfortunate and unnecessary to conclude, based on this data set, that the snow leopard comprises three separate subspecies. We feel this conclusion the overinterpretats an otherwise solid molecular data set and that this move goes against a more general feeling in conservation genetics, that it is advisable to avoid the use of the ill-defined, and problematic "subspecies" label (Table 1) and to move away from reliance on traditional population genetic data alone to generate units of any kind below the species level. Instead, multiple lines of genetic and nongenetic evidence that have some basis in fitness should be preferred (

Extreme in Every Way: Exceedingly Low Genetic Diversity in Snow Leopards Due to Persistently Small Population Size

“…Using range-wide samples, however, Janečka et al 27 analyzed 33 microsatellite loci and 683 bp of mitochondrial DNA from fecal samples to suggest three snow leopard subspecies-one of them occurring north of the Dzungarian Basin and Gobi Desert and two subspecies south of this divide, separated between the east and west of the Himalayas-Tibetan Plateau complex. However, this subspecies demarcation and the level of connectivity across the landscape is controversial 28,29 . It remains unclear if any landscape features within the snow leopard range are impermeable or if all snow leopard populations are connected to some degree through stepping-stone and/or long distance dispersal events.…”

Revisiting the Woolly wolf (Canis lupus chanco) phylogeny in Himalaya: Addressing taxonomy, spatial extent and distribution of an ancient lineage in Asia

“…Some examples of the debated species in Qinghai Tibetan Plateau (QTP) and Himalayan regions are musk deer (Moschus spp.) [2], blue sheep [3], wolf [4], brown bear [5]and snow leopard [6,7]. This region is known to have undergone various climatic changes in the past and differences in uplift since the Pleistocene.…”

The validity of three snow leopard subspecies: response to Senn et al.

“…Our delineation has been criticized by Senn et al (2017), who claimed that the snow leopard should remain monotypic. This conclusion is neither supported by the results of our phylogeographic study nor consistent with the standards used in the most recent taxonomic revision of Felidae (Kitchener et al 2017).…”

“…Among the 26 non-monotypic felids, 78% of the 77 subspecies recognized by Kitchener et al (2017) are not morphologically distinct. In fact, for the species above Kitchener et al defined subspecies that have been accepted by the IUCN Cat Specialist Group using information, which is not even sufficient to delineate MUs when applying the definitions summarized by Senn et al (2017) in their Table 1. Therefore, our evidence supporting subspecies delineation of the snow leopard exceeded the minimum criteria used in the recent Felidae taxonomic revision, which Senn et al reference as having applied "appropriate and consistent guidelines on the appropriate taxonomic criteria for conservation purposes".…”