Talk:Red Deer/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tibetan Red Deer

There's a link to "Shou" on here that redirects to "Sho", which is an article on japanese musical instruments. Maybe i'm missing something, but that can't possibly be right. Archtemplar 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Archtemplar

Reply: The "shou" is also "Tibetan Red Deer", a subspecies (Cervus Elaphus Affinis or Cervus Elaphus Wallichi) that was almost extinct...but has been rediscovered in Bhutan. user: dlc_73 21 June, 2006

American/European mess

This article is a bit of a mess. It starts of ok, but then carries on as the original article about the North American Wapiti (sometimes still calling it Elk), as though the European Red Deer did not exist. Billlion 03:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur. This is a total mess. Even the beginning is off, I think. "Wapiti" or "Elk" is not the American name for the red deer - it is the name of an American subspecies of the red deer. That's not the same thing. john k 15:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The North American animal is variously referred to as both the "elk" and the "wapiti" in this article. We need to adopt a standard for the N. American subspecies, and stick with it. "Elk" is definitely more widely used by the general public, but on the other hand, "wapiti" avoids confusion with the moose (which is called "elk" in Europe). What do you think? Funnyhat 04:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

We need to make it clear to the reader what is going on. Firstly, is the european red deer exactly the same as the N american elk? Sam Spade 08:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a subspecies, like the moose is a subspecies of what Europeans call Elk.
--Wiglaf 09:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
_ _ It is probably not even a subspecies.
_ _ Wiglaf hopefully draws here on not on Cervus elaphus canadensis, which could confuse the issue, but on Red Deer, which says
There are a number of subspecies of Red Deer, earlier some of these, such as the North American Wapiti were thought to be separate species, but they are now considered to be subspecies of the Red Deer.
and provides no citation, but conceivably relied on the protein analyses of
_ _ In any case, on the basis of abstracts, i'm more impressed by the later DNA results:
_ _ It is also important to be clear that if the wapiti were a subspecies of Red Deer, that would not rule out a separate article, but would only require a lk from Wapiti to Red Deer. I suggest that separate articles are in order:
  1. The reason it's "as though the European Red Deer did not exist" is that they barely exist, and the guys with the big guns would rather hunt elk (whether moose or wapiti) than largest European deer outside Scandinavia, so they're barely hunted.
  2. The confusion of Alces and wapiti under the name "elk" isn't a random quirk: similar things get similar names. In fact:
  3. The Dab Elk could be moved to Elk (disambiguation), with Elk being an article about quarter-ton-and-up deer (i.e. moose and wapiti) and what is in common about them that divides them from the rest of deer. I know an avid hunter who never puts in for a moose license bcz the aftermath of killing one is too much trouble. Deer hunters tie deer to their cars; moose get towed on trailers. Hit a deer at 40 mph, and it'll fly thru the air. Hit a moose (at any speed) and what comes next rests on the fact that you break its legs. Hit with with the front passenger-side corner of your car, and it's likely to collapse that diagonally rising post at the right edge of your windshield. Hit square on, and it'll fall onto the car; if it lands as far back as the windshield, it's likely to crush you to death by sheer weight, impact aside.
  4. Our job is not just to accurately identify species and subspecies, but to also reflect human knowledge's past. The relationship that pre-1990s authors thought elk had or not needs to be reflected, bcz what they wrote doesn't go away. That information is not in Red Deer, and Red Deer is not necessarily the best place to present it clearly.
--Jerzy•t 20:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

I think it may be best to separate the articles into Red Deer and something like Elk (North American) or Wapati. Although they are the same species so much of the article, culture history etc is different, and it would make for clearer articles. By the way, I wonder why the article settled on Elk rather than Wapati, I thought Elk was regarded in the US as a popular misnomer now, and well-informed peopel called them wapati. Can a US expert please clarify? Billlion 07:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

WAPITI is almost never used. These animals are usually called elk or deer in the U.S. NaySay 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this rubbish about lions and tigers being the same species. Male Ligers and Tigons are sterile. What a load of guff!Billlion 07:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I live in an area of the United States where elk are common and are much hunted. I am a hunter and have read a great deal on the biology of these animals. I have never heard the word Wapiti spoken. In countless conversations with hunters and conservation groups in the United States I have never heard the word used. I have read it in articles (usually throwing in a native word for the animal as an aside), but it is simply not used here.--Counsel 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Better organized mess

66.167.253.84 20:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC): I organized the article into major sections for the two continents. It was too hard to read with all the "also known as" blather, so I arbitrarily chose elk over wapiti for the North American section, leaving wapiti in a couple of key introductory places. Feel free to do the opposite if a majority prefers. As of this edit there is still much more information on the North American subspecies, but that now reflects simply what's been contributed rather than the inherent organization of the article. Editors are encouraged to extract out any common bits within the North American section and promoting them into a new shared section prefacing or following the per-continent sections.

See my comment/question above relative to this. Billlion 07:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

For now I will provide a link to recent research on the species for those interested to review. It is the only scientific paper on the subject I have read so I will not take the liberty to change the list of subspecies in accordance with this small piece of the puzzle which might or might not be widely accepted.

20:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.117.249 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 November 2005

Editing/reverting

Hi folks, Yesterday I grouped together all of the subspecies information and moved it down below the fold. I also removed unnecessary articles from the subheadings so that "in Europe" instead read "Europe". I edited the disease section for factual content. I made these changes without discussion. OK, someone liked the previous version and reverted; so be it. I lack the time to play competing edits.

I did however reedit the disease section. To say that 'Chronic wasting' disease is also known as 'mad cow' disease is misleading. I refer readers to the excellent page on prions to clarify this. Choose whatever format you like but let's have the factual content as correct as possible.

I apologize for reverting. I didn't review your edit carefully enough. Reorganizations of articles should be accompanied by an edit summary and a comment on the talk page in most cases if only to make it easier to follow the edit history of the article. Thank you for the fix on CWD. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed; sorry if I seemed cranky, it was pre-caffeine, and I was; again I am sorry. I have also learned that it is customary to make a note explaining the reasoning behind editing; sounds reasonable and I will do that in future. I'm not especially new to Wikipedia, but I am not here often enough to be 'steeped' in the culture. We all learn:) I also remembered my password today dmccabe!

Thank you for your graciousness. We should all do so well. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean Template

Kudos to User:Billlion, the article reads pretty nicely! I'm adding a Clean template here as the soundclip is some format that needs to be recast into some widely distributed standard (say, a WAV file) rather than whatever an OOG file is (Scientific???). Never heard of it as an Electrical Engineer, and certainly doesn't play under standard PC software. {Cleanup|date=March 2006}

FrankB 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for a very late reply to this. Thanks for the praise, but it was a team effort and its good to see lots of people fixing it. By the way Ogg (or Ogg-Vorbis) is the standard for open-source non-patent encumbered sound files. Many digital duke boxes (ie "mp3 players") support it as well as sound recording and playing programs. Wikipepedia commons does not allow patent-encumbered sound file formats like wav. See[1] Billlion 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved page

I have moved this page to "Red Deer (animal)" so that a query for "Red Dee" links to a disambiguation page. There are other significant articles with the same name. The city of Red Deer is a fairly major city in Alberta, Canada and I don't know if it is appropriate to assume that most people searching Red Deer are interested in the animal in this case. --Arch26 19:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely and totally disagree. Take a look at the "What links here" page for the disambiguation [2]. There's maybe a dozen city links and then about 200+ animal links. I don't think that justifies having a disambiguation page. Metros232 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Metros232. Pointless move GraemeLeggett 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Embryonic Diapause

This page could do with a mention of embryonic diapause as red deer are one of the main examples of this biological phenomena.... do you think it should be put in the rutting section??12:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Requested move

Red Deer (animal) → Red deer (or Red Deer) – move of 3 May and creation of disambig has left many, many articles about the animal pointing to the disambig instead (copied from the entry on the WP:RM page) GraemeLeggett 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. The other things that are named after it should be disambiguated, not the deer itself. Kafziel 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As someone who was attempting to point the articles in the right direction on the disambig page, I can say that there's a lot animal links and a dozen or so city links. Metros232 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious common-sense solution. Blisco 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move to Red Deer, with the current disambig page at that title going to Red Deer (disambiguation) - MPF 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

As an interim solution I've made Red deer redirect here. The disambiguation page is still linked from the top of this article. Blisco 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

With 100% support, move done - MPF 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply: The grouping of American elk and West European red deer refers to a vast number of subspecies that were originally classified as distinct...but science and mtDNA shows that many of these could be lumped into the American elk (in North America/Asia) and West European red deer of Central/Western Europe.

Reply: Dr. Valerius Geist has great books concerning red deer and wapiti, perhaps many of you should consider his books.

Red Deer is Elk?!

I did not know this! I wish I could have know that before. --[[User:Mitternacht90|Mitternacht90]] 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Add humans to list of predators

Should I add humans to the list of predators? Humans have been hunting deer since ancient times and maybe even before recorded history. I will add it if no-one objects in 24 hours. --JesseG88 22:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding content from copyrighted sources

I have an extensive section on elk in one of my books, which has input from Valerius Giest, and my own research. If you want me to add it here I will do so, provided there is a copyright notice and citation stating it is from the book. If this appears to be okay, someone contact me. TRMichels@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.106.19.217 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 October 2006.

Citing reliable sources is strongly encouraged on Wikipedia. However, extensive quotation of copyrighted sources is discouraged unless the content is licensed under one of the Wikipedia copyright licences. You may find more on using quotations at WP:QUOTE and a guideline on external links at WP:SPAM. More on using talk pages may be found at WP:TALK. Thank you for your interest. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tagged

This article needs a lot of cleanup, and I'll be working on it as I have tiime, and hope others will too. Please don't remove the cleanup tag until it's cleaned up. The intro is one sentence, the article doesn't cite references well, the information is off a bit...there are too many images...you name it.--MONGO 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Mongo, go ahead and clean. Sorry I was going back through previous comments (see above) and noticed the tag was added when the ogg file was mistakenly deleted. I didn't notice you had just addeded it again. Sorry.Billlion 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Gallery tag

Article is looking good. Though, I noticed a problem with the gallery tag, making all the references and everything after the gallery disappear. This is reported as a bug in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Gallery_tag_messes_up_references, so I tried moving the images into the article and removing the gallery. Please rearrange the images as necessary. Hopefully the bug will be fixed soon. --Aude (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the galleries. I was going to remove it, just hadn't gotten around to it yet. The article is missing something...can't figure out what it needs, but several areas still need enhancement. Thanks again.--MONGO 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty much outside my area of expertise, though when working on Banff National Park article, I came across something that said Red Deer (elk) are non-native species and introduced into the park in 1917. The source states "This importing of Wapiti has badly upset the balance of nature in the flora and fauna of the Park". [3] - see chapter, "Wildlife in Rocky Mountains Park", pages 16-17. Maybe the article needs more about their indiginous habitat versus where they were introduced, and their impact on ecology in such places. Chronic wasting disease seems to be another important topic [4] that maybe needs more discussion. That's all I can think of now. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I had thought the Elk were indegenious to Banff, and this demonstrates that reintroduction isn't always the best thing. We can definitely expand on the diseases issue. I wonder if a map showing historic and current natural ranges would help.--MONGO 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Elk

I'm still confused. Growing up in America, I always heard this animal referred to as an elk. This includes at zoos and national parks. The first time I ever heard it referred to as a red deer is when I typed Elk into the wiki search. Has anything been decided in this discussion, because I can't find it. I would definitely support a move to "Elk" though.--Billywhack 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an international project and Europeans named the Red Deer long before they came to North America and incorrectly called the larger North American Red Deer, "Elk" which is the European name for what is referred to as a Moose in North American. Let's keep the article titled as it is for now since I am still working on the subspecies and species information and may end up splitting the article in two later.--MONGO 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
A look at C.J. Ludt et al., the DNA article, might be helpful. [5] Table 1 shows how widely the species is distributed and does not use the term "elk". The article history shows that editors have been content with the "Red Deer" title for at least a year, so a proposal to change the article title will probably not succeed. [6] Earlier history is not very meaningful since the editor base was so much smaller.
I don't think I would split the article by subspecies at this time. Ludt et al. was published in 2004. That may be too recent to allow others to examine the claims of those authors and respond. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In trying to discuss briefly about speciation and the role of DNA, yes, there probablya re two differnt species here, in that a random uncontrolled reproductive effort between, lets say, Red Deer from northern Europe and Rocky Mountain Elk would not happen due to more than just geographic isolation, but due to behavioral characteristics which may render the situation mute. I saw and have been trying to relocate the information that specifically shows that all red deer produce fertile offspring...the common, laymans way of identifying species, and discuss that, this, in detail is not the modern manner in which to identify species...but that may be a tangent that is too far off the main course of this article.--MONGO 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there is no one article per species rule in wikipedia! There are plenty of species with several articles, especially domestic animals with lots of breeds. I propose the following:
Elk (diambiguation) as a disambiguation page to European and North American meanings of the word. Elk to be European Elk (with a reference to Moose obviously) Red deer separate article about European (or Eurasian) subspecies, Elk (North American) for the North American use, Moose as it is. Billlion 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I am not sure what the best course of action here is, but I am tending to agree with you that both an Elk {north america) and a Red Deer (europe, africa, west asia) articles would be fine. Each article should dicuss the DNA studies and clarify that as of now, the animals are still considered to be the same species...as Wsiegmund pointed out, the DNA work has yet to change the official nomenclature on this issue, probably since it is too new. That is interesting that what is known as the "Moose" is the main article. Elk already disambiguates the issue, but could use clarification maybe.--MONGO 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I like having the disambiguation page for Elk, explaining the different meanings of the word. I think Red Deer should also go to a disambiguation page, and explain the uses of the term. I always have known the animal as "elk". And, when I hear "Red Deer", I first and foremost think of Red Deer, Alberta and the Red Deer River. A disambiguation page that gives me choices of these links, along with articles about the species, would be most helpful. Separate pages for Elk (North American) and Red Deer (Eurasian) would also provide more space to talk about the range of the species (present day and their native habitat ranges). --Aude (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing two articles with much the same information and since the biologists have yet to sound off on whether these should be classified as seperate species, the only differences would be regional specific things such as appearance, behavior and habitat. I am not opposed to making two articles, but there will probably still need to be a discussion on each about the DNA study which details the differences and the similarities. I wish there was more than one DNA study of note and or some signal as to what the real number of "accepted" subspecies we are dealing with here.--MONGO 06:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it is not ideal, but one advantage is that it is easier to deal with the diaparity between languages. For example the Red deer article can talk about stags, hinds and does while the (Elk) North American can refer to bulls and calves. I think one aspect of this is that in both cultures the deer have a cultural significance beyond the biology, mainly due to their importance as human prey.Billlion 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay...lets' see how we can proceed here.

  • Update the disambiguation page to direct to Elk (animal) and Red Deer and ensure that there is a link for Elk, the European term for what North Americans call a Moose...and of course keep all the other disambiguations that are also on the page (just a simple adjustment).
  • Elk should redirect to the disambiguation page.
  • Red Deer should direct to Red Deer.
  • Wapiti should redirect to Elk (animal).
  • Ensure that the DNA and species discussion be incorporated into both Elk (animal) and Red Deer.
  • Clarify the habitat, appearance, behavior and subspecies that are most wide accepted within each of the two articles. Other issues, such as endangered status, distribution and regional specific wording should go into appropriate articles.

Any other thoughts are welcome.--MONGO 08:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion. As I know you are aware, this naming debate says more about difficulties with the definition of 'species' than anything else. As we find out more about DNA, more debates like this are bound to occur. People have got so into the habit of thinking of species as the basic building blocks of biology, and it turns out so many of what we thought were species actually weren't. I'd be very sorry to lose Red Deer as a page referring to the animal I see here in Scotland. Your proposals above sound reasonable if I understand them. Best wishes --Guinnog 08:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh no...the Red Deer article will continue...it will just be more regional specific. I see two article with similar details in some areas and regional specific discussions in others. My guess is that with the DNA issue, biologists may decide to seperate these animals to some degree in a few years or less...but who knows. Thanks for the input.--MONGO 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
With two articles, Elk/Wapiti and Red Deer, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to include the closely related east eurasian subspecies in the former article. Then, if the Ludt et al. cladistics are accepted, only minor editing will be required. It melds well with the discussion of Elk origins and colonization of North America also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely what I had in mind...I see a number of far eastern subspecies are known as Wapiti (the North American naming) anyway. I'll think I may start splitting these articles up now and see how it goes...whatever I do can be reverted.--MONGO 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not just rename the article Cervus elaphus, with all the appropriate references to alternatice names, subspecies and subspecies articles up front? Luigizanasi 15:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
For Wapiti redirect, don't forget the Westland Wapiti. GraemeLeggett 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I might be in the minority here, but think that Red Deer should redirect to Red Deer (disambiguation) for two reasons. First, a disambiguation page can list the alternative names (e.g. Elk, Wapiti), with a brief description about name variations, to help guide the reader to the right place. Second, when I enter "Red Deer" into Google [7], the top result is the City of Red Deer home page, with 6 of the top 10 results referring to this place. Two of the other top ten links are here to Wikipedia. The next set of ten links has nine of them referring to the place. A disambiguation page would help direct people to what they want, be it Red Deer - the place, Red Deer (European), Elk (North America), Wapiti, etc. --Aude (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. Red Deer the animal is the primary use, other uses are just derivatives. The idea that red deer have not put up a web site so their google rank is better than some irrelevant place of that name can hardly be held against them. Typing with hooves has got to be hard even if did know html. Red deer does not need to disambiguate to Elk and Wapati as those are not 'alternative uses of the words Red Deer', thay are different names for subspecies (or groups of subspecies). The idea is in my opionion a non-starter.Billlion 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your reply is begging for incivility on my part, but I won't go there. Anyway, I fixed the issue by using {{Two other uses}}. While I respect the different cultural context and uses of the word "Red Deer" in Europe, it's necessary for Wikipedia to help its readers by providing these alternatives which are important to some users. --Aude (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally I favour one species, one article, but not dogmatically so; where there is an abundance of information, a species page can reasonably be broken up into several pages, one for each subspecies (as has been done for e.g. Lion and Tiger). Cervus elaphus would appear to be a good case for such treatment.

I'd suggest Red Deer should remain the summary page for the species (including a full subspecies list, which it doesn't have yet!!), and also the detailed page for the nominate subspecies C. e. elaphus.

The difficult one is the page title for the C. e. canadensis page, because of the common name problem; both Elk and Elk (animal) can refer as much (and primarily, on historical precedent) to Alces alces as to C. e. canadensis. Wapiti might be the best title, or maybe Elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis)? Maybe Moose should also be split by subspecies, into Moose (A. a. americanus) and Elk (Alces alces) (A. a. alces).

As an aside, the current Red Deer page has mixed British and American spellings; this should be copyedited to British spellings on restricting the page to C. e. elaphus, and the C. e. canadensis page copyedited to US (or Canadian) spellings, as per the WP:MOS area relevance guidelines. - MPF 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I'm leaning towards two articles: Red Deer and [[Elk {Cervus elaphus)]]. Before I started editing this article, there were in fact a long list of subspecies in the text, but more recent DNA evidence and the lack of any unified authority that are in complete agreement on the issue of subspecies, made me limit the discussion in the article to those species listed as possibly endangered by the World Conservation Union (as shown in the table in the article)...and none of the far eastern asian or north american subspecies are on that list. Without violating WP:NOR, my preference would be to have two articles. I found that when doing the research for this article and trying to deal with whether to call them hinds, does, stags, bulls or calves and the minomers regarding the usage of the word elk, that it has become a really confusing article to work on.--MONGO 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(cc. from Talk:MPF:) Thanks for the contribution to the Red Deer discussion. Not sure what to do with the article at this point. I wanted to show you this DNA study about Red Deer subspecies issues, looking also at the conclusion of the researchers. It sure would be nice if the biologists would come forward and reach some consensus on the number of subspecies and as to whether there are actually two speices or just one, but as User:Wsiegmund has pointed out to me, the DNA research may be too new for others to have rendered an opinion publically yet. Anyway, here's the link if you're interested. Thanks again. [8]. --MONGO 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref - I'd say if anything, it actually makes page sorting easier, since it quite clearly splits them into three species, Red Deer (C. elaphus), Wapiti/American Elk (presumably C. canadensis as that is likely an earlier published name than C. sibericus or any of the other east Asian taxa - need to check publication dates but that's easy), and Tarim Deer (presumably C. bactrianus). I'd even say we have to split the current Red Deer page, as keeping a broad circumscription of C. elaphus leaves it paraphyletic with respect to C. nippon (Sika Deer); their evidence for this is strong (the other option would be to lump Sika Deer into Red - not an attractive proposition). Fortunately, virtually all the sci names will have been published at species rank at some time in the past, so putting them as species on the basis of this ref wouldn't break WP:NOR. Then sorting out subspecies within each of the three species can be left to a later date when more info becomes available (cc. this to Talk:Red Deer). - MPF 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe two articles and a mention of the overlapping species(?) Tarim Deer in both, with discussion about the geographical isolation factors that may lead to gene drift and adaptive evolutionary issues, thus impacting the DNA....maybe too off topic, but some discussion will be needed to make it clear that we are dealing with two or maybe three species that are still capable of producing fertile offspring if they are mated, but generally unlikely to do so due to alterations in behavioral, mating and appearance, beyond the issue of geographic isolation. No doubt, the Red Deer and Elk are much more closely related than a Horse and Donkey are since the end result of the latter is almost always a sterile Mule.--MONGO 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following above. Perhaps it is better placed here: I live in an area of the United States where elk are common and are much hunted. I am a hunter and have read a great deal on the biology of these animals. I have never heard the word Wapiti spoken. In countless conversations with hunters and conservation groups in the United States I have never heard the word used. I have read it in articles (usually throwing in a native word for the animal as an aside), but it is simply not used here.--Counsel 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of the division of the article into two: one for the American Elk and one for the Red Deer. The term Red Deer is not used in the United States for this animal. Virtually any American seeking to use wikipedia will not be well served with only the article on Red Deer. It seems analogous to putting information on the New York subway system under the heading "Tube". No one in the US is likely to find it or be satisfied if they do (the subspecies here is not even red). I would think that a small summary article under the scientific name with a link to the regionally focused articles would serve well.--Counsel 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have some information from Dr.Geist, who is referenced as well, that supports the DNA info in the article...but hoping the person who sent the info to me via email will also contribute to this discussion before we proceed in splitting the articles up.--MONGO 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Three species of red deer: European Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus), Himalayan/Tibetan Red Deer (Cervus Affinis), East Asian Red Deer/Wapiti (Cervus Canadensis)

The red deer of Europe and the elk are indeed two different species, a rather recent clarification based on a re-evaluation of the genetic record.

This is Dr. Geist's appended draft. It's in a conference proceedings, but will be much upgraded for publication in a journal. According to Dr. Geist, you will get the gist of it.


Geist, V.

Sept 3rd 2006 Draft

Taxonomic classification by adaptation versus descent: mitochondrial DNA analysis of cervid phylogeny and a resolution of the taxonomy of “red deer”.

Do “red deer” comprise one species, Cervus elaphuss Linnaeus 1758, or must the North American wapiti and the Siberian maral be placed into a separate species Cervus canadensis, Erxleben 17777? The failure to resolve the long-standing uncertainties in the classification of “red deer”, placed by current consensus into one species, Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 1758, can be traced to a general failure in defining rigorous criteria of taxonomic classification, a lack of relevant data and too uncritical a conception of the “biological species” definition. This is exemplified in the most recent and detailed study of the problem by Bart O’Gara (2002), although the uncertainties in the taxonomy of this group of deer have a very long history (Geist 1998). The consensus of including all red deer in one species, Cervus elaphus was bases on the assumption that red deer from Europe to North America formed a continuous circumpolar cline of populations, and thus related east to west by degree, and on the hybridization in New Zealand of its most extreme members, the European red deer and the American wapiti. To be meaningful the “biological species concepts” can only be applied to two forms meeting under natural conditions, which include their predators. This condition is not fulfilled in New Zealand, as the test of genetic compatibility is the ability of hybrids to survive predation as well as the parent forms. In the absence of predation, when under human care, hybrids with incompetent anti-predator adaptations can survive, as exemplified most strikingly by hybrids of mule deer and white-tailed deer (Lingle).

However, the problems of determining valid taxonomic criteria, as well as the actual classification of the “red deer” group of deer can now be both resolved thanks to detailed information on molecular genetics. The most important paper here is by Ludt et al. (2004) and Ludt and Kuehn (this volume), which generated of a phylogeny model based on the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene of 37 cervid populations. While there are other papers dealing with molecular phylogeny of cervids , the analysis by Christian Ludt and collegues is most significant because of the criteria used to select subspecies of red deer. The taxonomic identity is precise and based on a rigorous and uncompromising application of differences in the nuptial coat and antler patterns of old breeding males only, with all specimen coming from free-living populations with precisely identified geographic locations. The determinations and collections were done by Christian Oswald of the Christian Oswald Cervid Museum in Ebersberg, Germany. The criteria of classification for red deer subspecies are the same as in Geist (1998). The data used by Ludt and colleagues is thus not contaminated by samples form zoo or farmed specimen, or from old museum specimen of uncertain affinity.

The first significant finding of Ludt et al is the close parallel between differences in coat patterns and genetic distances. Specimen close in coat and antler characteristics were also close genetically, and vice versa. This verifies that differences in nuptial coat patterns are a valid taxonomic criterion. This is the first demonstration of this relationship, which gives hope that other mammalian species breaking up into externally well-differentiated populations can also be validly classified by the same criteria. Although I here emphasize nuptial coat pattern and markings, these go hand in hand with differences in the rutting vocalizations of males, while differences in the smell of urine soaked rutting males to the human nose suggest an olfactory social segregation as well. This requires investigation.

The taxonomic problems with red deer however, do not reside at the subspecies, but at the species and higher taxonomic levels. Currently, the consensus is to place all subspecies of red deer into one species, Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 1758. The alternative long-standing proposal was to segregate wapiti from European red deer into a separate species, Cervus canadensis Erxleben 1777. This places one into a conundrum where to place the diverse Asiatic subspecies, that is, where to draw the boundaries between C. elaphus and C. canadensis. Moreover, if one applies the species classification as practiced by biologists interested in caprids, that is, by clustering closely related subspecies into species, then there are three species of red deer, the European red deer, the central Asian mountain and riparian-adapted red deer, and the advanced maral/wapiti red deer of Asia and North America. In this classification the species is merely a collection category without biologically meaningful criteria. This is compounded by attempts at taxonomic classification by students of molecular genetics. Clearly, a biologically meaningful sorting out of species is required. Such a solution is at hand. To illustrate it on the example of “red deer”, not only the data from molecular genetics is required, but also an understanding of Pleistocene history and evolution and cervid ecology. Only then can one recognize what happens when one classifies by decent (molecular data) as opposed to adaptations (ecological roles).

The data by Ludt et al (2004) shows that probably well before the Pleistocene, the gene pool of primitive red deer progenitors split into a western and an eastern segment. The western segment retained its identity, and, because of it gave rise to one form and one form only, the classical European/Asia Minor red deer. This gene pool must have been mixed with every one of the 18 plus glacial advances during the Pleistocene. Today this form has relatively weakly differentiated subspecies, but an exceedingly long history of independent evolution. Consequently, subspecies must be all of recent origin, which is supported by the data of Ludt et al. 2004. The body shape of this form is that of a saltatorial/cursorial runner with exceedingly great adaptability to all sort of landscapes. This is a generalist species in contrast to the specialist speciation that took place in the eastern gene pool (see below). There is no difficulty naming the European red deer a species, based on the adaptive syndrome of a slatatorial/cursorial form and applying to it the old species designation Cervus elaphys L. 1758. This comes into clear focus when looking at he fate of the eastern gene pool, for it had a very different fate.

The eastern gene pool was not cohesive, but split deeply into four distinct and more specialized “body forms”:

1. The primitive original parent form, the sika deer, a classical saltatorial runner, with a four- pronged antler plan, a long tail and an erectable, long-haired rump patch. This form occupies moderately cool, temperate climates with short winters and low snow-levels. This form is classified as a different subgenus and species from European red deer, namely Cervus [Sika] sika (even though in the absence of predation these two species may hybridize and produce a hybrid flock with incompetent anti-predator adaptations). Note, this is a segregation at the subgenus, let alone species levels!

2. The advanced, large-bodied, specialized saltors, adapted to steep and high mountains whose slopes are also covered with willow and rhododendron shrubs, requiring extraordinary ability at jumping, and ascending steep hills. This requires a specialized saltatorial morphology, with large, well-muscled haunches. These deer have a five-pronged antler in that a very large bez tine has been added to the sika’s four-pronged antler plan. The tail and rump patch are totally different from the sika conditions. This body form is found in cold climates, with long winters. Examples are the Macneill’s stag, the Kasmir stag and the shou. A branch of this body form is found in lowland deserts in the dense riparian vegetation which follows desert rivers. These are the Buchara and Lop-Nor subspecies.

3. The very large deer with highly evolved cursorial body form and six-pronged antlers architecture. Again all these deer are different in rump patch and social characteristics from the preceding and succeeding deer. These are the maral/wapiti subspecies of central Asia and North America. These are cold adapted mixed feeders with a pronounced tendency to graze. They reach beyond the Arctic Circle. Their body plan evolved in response to life in open landscapes. The most highly evolved subspecies here is the Siberian and North American wapit, adapted as fast runners on open plains. Their body plan is cursorial and second only to the reindeer or caribou. Both were bested as advanced runners only by the Irish elk (Megalocers, see Geist 1998).

4. The specializes cursor/climber with highly advanced antler plan, but missing the bez tine, adapted to the highest of mountains and found on the highest alpine meadows and hills, but is capable of rapid climbing in cliffs as well. This form is the white-lipped deer (Cervus [Przewalskium] albirostris). This form is also so specialized and different from the others, that is segregated at the sub-generic level.

Please note that the eastern gene pool segregated into four distinct, specialized body forms while the western gene-pool evolved a fifth, but generalized body shape, namely that of the saltatorial/cursorial runner (Geist 1998). Each of the five body plans reveals a somewhat different approach to escaping the pursuit of predators, with the saltatorial being the most primitive and the cursorial the most advanced. That is, when we classify by body plan we classify by adaptation, which is the only way in which we can classify taxonomically. Note, this not a classification by descent, but independent of it! The differences in body plans reflect firstly differences in anti-predator adaptations. That is, red deer species are segregated primarily by anti-predator adaptations – as are all deer species. This reinforces the hypothesis that predation segregated deer ecologically and taxonomically as I pointed out as general rule for cervids in Geist (1998). Each species is also marked socially in a distinctive manner. Each species is thus an adaptive syndrome. Moreover, each of these adaptive syndromes (body plans) breaks up into a number of subspecies. A cluster of subspecies thus represents the same adaptations, and each adaptive syndrome is different from other clusters. We can therefore recognize as a species each cluster of subspecies with the same basic adaptations. The so-called Far Eastern red deer, are thus similar to European red deer only via convergence, which is, admittedly, a very powerful evolutionary process (Geist 1978). The red deer species as currently agreed to, Cervus elaphus ,is thus not monophyletic, but polyphyletic. Consequently, it is no species at all. We can thus label each distinct body form a species with its attending subspecies. We have consequently:

1. Cervus elaphus in Asia Minor and Europe, (saltatorial/cursorial, generalist)

2. Cervus affinis in the eastern Himalayas, eastern Tibet and western China, (saltatorial, advanced, specialist)

3. Cervus canadensis in central Asia and North America (cursorial, specialist)

4. Cervus albirostris as the high elevation specialist. (cursorial/climbing, specialist)

5. Cervus sika from temperate zoned China (slatatorial primitive)

This classification fits the evolutionary species concept as practiced by the IUCN Caprid specialist group. . The caprid biologists were right: each sheep species is an “adaptive syndrome”! Note that the species adaptive syndromes which arose from the eastern gene pool are more specialized and distant from one another, than either is from the generalist adaptive syndrome of the European red deer, despite being more closely related via mtDNA.

The molecular data also shows why Cervus canadensis is closer related to Cervus sika, than to Cervus elaphus, a previously puzzling finding which was dicussed by Harrington (1985).

The eastern gene pool was thus able to retain the primitive parental form, the sika deer, probably because on the Asiatic mainland sika deer could move southward with each glaciation, following milder climates and moist forested landscapes, while evading long, cold winters, deep snow and open landscapes. This opportunity to withdraw geographically to suitable forests was denied to members of the western gene pool, due to extensive desert formation about the Mediterranean basin with each major glacial advance. They survived probably as relict populations in the mountains of Asia Minor, from which they radiated into Europe with each interglacial.

The eastern gene-pool gave rise early to a form, highly evolved in body shape, antlers and social characteristics, which occupied the highest of mountain plateaus, the white-lipped deer. Central Asia is characterized by huge areas of high mountain elevations and such are retained during interglacials. Consequently, a high mountain specialist, the white-lipped deer, could maintain itself through out the Pleistocene. These extended high-elevation plateaus are not found in Europe or Asia Minor. The huge area of mountains and their high elevations insure that during glacial cycles the same habitat survives during glacials and interglacials.

Because high mountain plateaus are surrounded by large, steep slopes well vegetated with tall shrubs in the sub-alpine levels, the Himalayan/Tibetan deer (Cervus affinis) split sharply form all other groups as they specialized in dealing effectively with the vagaries of steep, long, shrubbery-covered slopes. Their body form differs consequently from both the cursorial body form of the plains runners, and the saltaorial/cursorial body form of European red deer. Again the huge area of mountains and their high elevation insure for habitat continuity during glacial cycles.

The same goes for the wide-open plains to which the cursorial Asian/North America forms (Cervus canadensis) have adapted. They have well developed appendages and bodies specialized for fast running over short grasses and feature the largest antlers, an adaptation to the open plains in the service of neonatal survival (see Geist 1998, 1991, 1986). Judging from Chinese fossils, these deer are quite old.

The body forms and adaptive syndromes of the wapiti/maral species and that of the Tibetan and riparian “jumping deer” species are more divergent, than are either from the European red deer. Each of these species is characterized not only by distinct antler form, but also by highly distinct rump patches, double patch with long tail in European red deer, small white rump patch in jumping deer, large single patch in wapiti/maral species, both with a short tail. The antler plan in the Tibetan deer is five-rponged, in the wapiti, maral group six pronged, and in the European red deer, five pronged with enhanced terminal branching.

The “red deer” in the consensus species Cervus elaphus thus represent a polyphyletic group, which can be split into three good species. Parallel and converging evolution from the same gene pool resulted in considerable similarity between the European reed deer, the Tibetan and desert deer and the maral/wapiti group. There was some meeting of eastern and western species as shown by the mitochondrial DNA of the western-most subspecies of Tibetan deer, the Kashmir stag. It clusters with the Buchara and Lop Nor deer.

References

Geist, V. 1978. Life Strategies, Human Evolution, Environmental Design. Springer Verlag, New York.

Geist, v. 1986. The paradox of the great Irish stags. Natural History 94(3) 54-64.

Geist, V. 1991. Bones of contention revisited: did antlers enlarge with sexual selection sd a consequence of neonatal security strategies? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 29: 453-469.

Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the World. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Harrington, R. Evolution and distribution of the Cervidae pp. 3-11 P. F. Fentress and K. R. Drew (eds). Biology of Deer Production. The royal Society of new Zealand, Bulletin 22, Wellington.

Ludt, C. J., Schroeder, W., Rottmann, O., Kuehn, R. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA phylogeny of red deer (Cervus elaphus). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31 (3) 1064-1083.

.--dlc_73 21:21, 30 October 2006


Good job...now we have figure out what of the above can be added to the soon to be split articles...is this simply his thoughts or is it going to be part of a published paper. If it is going to be published, then we have to ensure each passage is referenced to the source and quoted or reworded to avoid a copyviolation. Obviously, there is an official" upcoming announcement that the Red Deer species are to be divided into several species and this is agreed by those in the scientific community? Regardless, with Dr. Geist and the DNA study mentioned in the article, that is all the proof we need that we are dealing with two to three species and that each one can have their own article. We also need ot make it clear of the similarities of each species in each article and dicuss the history of the identification of these types.--MONGO 05:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Dr Geist is a professor at University of Calgary and can be contacted. I do have the actual message he sent to me along with the attached article, and have pretty much echoed his sentiments. Unfortunately, I don't know what publication this article will be in...but I believe it is upcoming, and that all enthusiasts should be on the lookout for it.

Please note/be advised that the following deer have already long been classified as separate species:

4. Thorold's Deer, or White-Lipped Deer (Cervus (Przewalskium) Albirostris) (see Thorold's Deer for more information)

5. Sika Deer (a.k.a. Cervus sika) (Cervus (Sika) Nippon) (see Sika Deer for more information)

I believe Dr. Geist included them, because these two species are closely related, genetically, to the Red Deer and Wapiti.

.--dlc_73 22:50, 30 October 2006

I am happy with Common name (binomial name) format. European Red Deer is Ok with me as a European. Just as European Hare is alright although for us the 'archetypal' Hare. I don't think binomial names should be the article title were there are common name(s) (and I thought this was a policy?) Billlion 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Example of the Division of Articles on US/European split

The articles on Ursus arctos are instructive. The Grizzly and the Brown Bear (and the Kodiak for that matter) all have different articles even though they are one species.--Counsel 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that is kind of in the happening...if you could give it a day or two.--MONGO 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)