<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kouprey Debate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/</link>
	<description>for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: shumway10973</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8059</link>
		<dc:creator>shumway10973</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8059</guid>
		<description>the first photo looks more like an elk with cow horns. The second looks like a domesticated cow.  By the way, unless it is lying down in the grass to the bottom right, there isn't one in the last photo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the first photo looks more like an elk with cow horns. The second looks like a domesticated cow.  By the way, unless it is lying down in the grass to the bottom right, there isn&#8217;t one in the last photo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kittenz</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8055</link>
		<dc:creator>kittenz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8055</guid>
		<description>Good point about genotype vs phenotype. Fertile inter-species crosses are well documented in both Canidae and Bovidae. It will probably never be known for certain which wild species other than the gray wolf (and to much less extent the dingo) contributed to the domestic dog's gene pool.

The evidence for the possibility of assimilation of one species into another, larger gene pool is right before our eyes today, at least as far as Canidae are concerned: two examples that come to mind are the Red Wolf and the Ethiopian Wolf.

The Red Wolf was rapidly becoming assimilated into the coyote gene pool; debate continues as to how many (some would ask whether any) pure Red Wolves exist. Capture and captive breeding of a small group of animals believed to be purebred may save that species; it is simply too soon to tell. Red Wolves also figure (at least anecdotally) in the development of some domestic dog breeds: notably the Catahoula Leopard Dog and some of the other curs. Dingos, which I consider to be a distinct species closelty related to dogs and wolves, also hybridize readily with domestic dogs and are in danger of losing their identity in some areas.

The Ethiopian Wolf population crisis may be more relevant to this discussion: this wolf, which is in many ways very doglike, is hybridizing with domestic dogs, at least at the fringes of its range. Given the tiny remnant population of the wolves that exists, and the pressure on that population from canine diseases such as rabies and distemper, destruction of habitat and hybridization could conceivably eliminate the Ethiopian Wolf as a distinct species within a few decades.

Possibly human intervention will come in time to prevent this. But in earlier times, when most people did not have the enlightened view of predators that is prevalent today, situations similar to these may have occured without being recognized until it was too late for the remnant species.

Who knows how many such small, fragmented, remnant species have been overwhelmed by and assimilated into larger gene pools over the millenia?

People have probably kept pets for as long as we have been people. I believe that our universal propensity to take and keep pets is one of the traits that marks our species as human.
Even tribal people who do not keep domestic stock usually have pets taken from the local fauna: monkeys, parrots, civets, mongooses, the occasional jackal or fox puppy, etc.; the list is as almost varied as the fauna itself. Modern humans in a natural state are almost invariably nomadic to some extent. In all species the instinct to reproduce is very strong. Since the vast majority of pets in history and in prehistory have NOT been rendered incapable of reproducing, it surely was inevitable that nomadic people's pets' sometimes mated with related but different species within the local fauna. It will probably never be known just how much influence those random matings had in the evolution of our domestic animals.

But I will leave that for another discussion sometime.

I LOVE cryptomundo! I wish I'd found this long ago. The Maine mutant story drew me in. I sure do enjoy and appreciate these lively topics and discussions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point about genotype vs phenotype. Fertile inter-species crosses are well documented in both Canidae and Bovidae. It will probably never be known for certain which wild species other than the gray wolf (and to much less extent the dingo) contributed to the domestic dog&#8217;s gene pool.</p>
<p>The evidence for the possibility of assimilation of one species into another, larger gene pool is right before our eyes today, at least as far as Canidae are concerned: two examples that come to mind are the Red Wolf and the Ethiopian Wolf.</p>
<p>The Red Wolf was rapidly becoming assimilated into the coyote gene pool; debate continues as to how many (some would ask whether any) pure Red Wolves exist. Capture and captive breeding of a small group of animals believed to be purebred may save that species; it is simply too soon to tell. Red Wolves also figure (at least anecdotally) in the development of some domestic dog breeds: notably the Catahoula Leopard Dog and some of the other curs. Dingos, which I consider to be a distinct species closelty related to dogs and wolves, also hybridize readily with domestic dogs and are in danger of losing their identity in some areas.</p>
<p>The Ethiopian Wolf population crisis may be more relevant to this discussion: this wolf, which is in many ways very doglike, is hybridizing with domestic dogs, at least at the fringes of its range. Given the tiny remnant population of the wolves that exists, and the pressure on that population from canine diseases such as rabies and distemper, destruction of habitat and hybridization could conceivably eliminate the Ethiopian Wolf as a distinct species within a few decades.</p>
<p>Possibly human intervention will come in time to prevent this. But in earlier times, when most people did not have the enlightened view of predators that is prevalent today, situations similar to these may have occured without being recognized until it was too late for the remnant species.</p>
<p>Who knows how many such small, fragmented, remnant species have been overwhelmed by and assimilated into larger gene pools over the millenia?</p>
<p>People have probably kept pets for as long as we have been people. I believe that our universal propensity to take and keep pets is one of the traits that marks our species as human.<br />
Even tribal people who do not keep domestic stock usually have pets taken from the local fauna: monkeys, parrots, civets, mongooses, the occasional jackal or fox puppy, etc.; the list is as almost varied as the fauna itself. Modern humans in a natural state are almost invariably nomadic to some extent. In all species the instinct to reproduce is very strong. Since the vast majority of pets in history and in prehistory have NOT been rendered incapable of reproducing, it surely was inevitable that nomadic people&#8217;s pets&#8217; sometimes mated with related but different species within the local fauna. It will probably never be known just how much influence those random matings had in the evolution of our domestic animals.</p>
<p>But I will leave that for another discussion sometime.</p>
<p>I LOVE cryptomundo! I wish I&#8217;d found this long ago. The Maine mutant story drew me in. I sure do enjoy and appreciate these lively topics and discussions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ranatemporaria</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8056</link>
		<dc:creator>Ranatemporaria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8056</guid>
		<description>Kittenz
The question is are they genotypically plastic or is it phenotypic plasticisity alone?  I’m not to hot on all that bovine, but I do know, as a comparative example that the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) has shown massive phenotypic variability only a very short evolutionary history with very little genetic variance, (weather that is from a single source or was formed by various ancestral backcrosses I’m not sure but remember evolution is not linear).  And despite such range of morphology they all my most accepted definitions a single species.  Like cattle breeds many traits have been selected for artificially by man, but still it lays testimony to the potential rate of morphological evolution WITHOUT genetic divergence.  Either way, we should still look at the Kouprey as a rare and invaluable animal whatever its phylogenetic history.

Still can’t see it in the pic mind!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kittenz<br />
The question is are they genotypically plastic or is it phenotypic plasticisity alone?  I’m not to hot on all that bovine, but I do know, as a comparative example that the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) has shown massive phenotypic variability only a very short evolutionary history with very little genetic variance, (weather that is from a single source or was formed by various ancestral backcrosses I’m not sure but remember evolution is not linear).  And despite such range of morphology they all my most accepted definitions a single species.  Like cattle breeds many traits have been selected for artificially by man, but still it lays testimony to the potential rate of morphological evolution WITHOUT genetic divergence.  Either way, we should still look at the Kouprey as a rare and invaluable animal whatever its phylogenetic history.</p>
<p>Still can’t see it in the pic mind!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sky King</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8058</link>
		<dc:creator>Sky King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8058</guid>
		<description>"The above pictured kouprey is the misidentified animal that arrived at the menagerie of the botanical garden of Paris in 1871."

Funny picture.  It looks like it came to stay and is participating in a conference about how to get rid of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The above pictured kouprey is the misidentified animal that arrived at the menagerie of the botanical garden of Paris in 1871.&#8221;</p>
<p>Funny picture.  It looks like it came to stay and is participating in a conference about how to get rid of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sasquatch</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8057</link>
		<dc:creator>sasquatch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8057</guid>
		<description>Yeah, the one in the top picture looks like a cross between an Elk and one of those striped large African antelope. I forgot their name. Anyway it does not look like the second picture at all. Could it be the angle of the picture? I doubt it. The neck looks much longer in the first animal, and the horns look almost antler-like. I live in Colorado and see lot's of elk and the horns look like the velvet stage in a young bull.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, the one in the top picture looks like a cross between an Elk and one of those striped large African antelope. I forgot their name. Anyway it does not look like the second picture at all. Could it be the angle of the picture? I doubt it. The neck looks much longer in the first animal, and the horns look almost antler-like. I live in Colorado and see lot&#8217;s of elk and the horns look like the velvet stage in a young bull.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: planettom</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8054</link>
		<dc:creator>planettom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8054</guid>
		<description>Very interesting debate.  Maybe the sides could work together to come to a conclusion.  Appears like a battle for the sides to get their journal articles published.  Sounds like a research article critique is in order, as well as for the evidence.  Interesting animal with quite the history.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting debate.  Maybe the sides could work together to come to a conclusion.  Appears like a battle for the sides to get their journal articles published.  Sounds like a research article critique is in order, as well as for the evidence.  Interesting animal with quite the history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mnynames</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8053</link>
		<dc:creator>Mnynames</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8053</guid>
		<description>I think it's well past time that biologists had a conference and settled on a definition of just what IS a species, much as the Astronomical Union recently did concerning the definition of planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s well past time that biologists had a conference and settled on a definition of just what IS a species, much as the Astronomical Union recently did concerning the definition of planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ratz061</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8052</link>
		<dc:creator>ratz061</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8052</guid>
		<description>The head on image of the animal in the top most photo does NOT represent the bovine looking animal in the 2nd photo.

Though interesting, the "cow" in the 2nd photo is not nearly as interesting as the truly extraordinary creature in the top photograph.

When was the top photo taken, and where specifically?

No doubt the numbers of this species are probably quite small.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The head on image of the animal in the top most photo does NOT represent the bovine looking animal in the 2nd photo.</p>
<p>Though interesting, the &#8220;cow&#8221; in the 2nd photo is not nearly as interesting as the truly extraordinary creature in the top photograph.</p>
<p>When was the top photo taken, and where specifically?</p>
<p>No doubt the numbers of this species are probably quite small.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kittenz</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8048</link>
		<dc:creator>kittenz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8048</guid>
		<description>I do not believe that DNA examination is completely reliable for the identification of separate species in the case of such genetically plastic animal families as the Bovidae and the Canidae. Different members of both groups have been domesticated in various places since prehistoric times. People being the nomadic creatures that we are, and attracted to novelty the way we are, every where people have ever traveled we have interbred our domestic stock with the indigenous animals. Since most inter-species hybrids in the Bovidae (and Canidae) are fertile, even in the first generation, after a few generations have passed, it becomes nearly impossible to determine what genes originally came from which species. Many species which existed in small numbers or isolated locations have undoubtedly been assimilated into the large and varied gene pools of domestic stock around the world. I believe several species no longer exist as distinct species because of this assimilation.

For instance, I do not believe that the gray wolf as we know it today is the only progenitor of the domestic dog. There are just too many forms and patterns and colorations within the species DOG, that simply do not exist in the species GRAY WOLF.

Same thing with cattle. I do not believe that Bos aurochs and Bos indicus are the only ancestors of Bos taurus. The primary ancestors, yes. The only ancestors, no.

I believe that kouprey are a distinct species which is closely related to the species (I read that as "species", plural) from which zebu were derived. It is very likely that more than one subspecies or even more than one distinct species of kouprey (and other wild cattle) exist or have existed within recent times.

Whether they will continue to exist, given the widespread deforestaion and fragmentation of the fragile ecosystems in which they evolved, is problematic. The world is - tragically - running out of room for large wild animals as the human population explodes out of control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do not believe that DNA examination is completely reliable for the identification of separate species in the case of such genetically plastic animal families as the Bovidae and the Canidae. Different members of both groups have been domesticated in various places since prehistoric times. People being the nomadic creatures that we are, and attracted to novelty the way we are, every where people have ever traveled we have interbred our domestic stock with the indigenous animals. Since most inter-species hybrids in the Bovidae (and Canidae) are fertile, even in the first generation, after a few generations have passed, it becomes nearly impossible to determine what genes originally came from which species. Many species which existed in small numbers or isolated locations have undoubtedly been assimilated into the large and varied gene pools of domestic stock around the world. I believe several species no longer exist as distinct species because of this assimilation.</p>
<p>For instance, I do not believe that the gray wolf as we know it today is the only progenitor of the domestic dog. There are just too many forms and patterns and colorations within the species DOG, that simply do not exist in the species GRAY WOLF.</p>
<p>Same thing with cattle. I do not believe that Bos aurochs and Bos indicus are the only ancestors of Bos taurus. The primary ancestors, yes. The only ancestors, no.</p>
<p>I believe that kouprey are a distinct species which is closely related to the species (I read that as &#8220;species&#8221;, plural) from which zebu were derived. It is very likely that more than one subspecies or even more than one distinct species of kouprey (and other wild cattle) exist or have existed within recent times.</p>
<p>Whether they will continue to exist, given the widespread deforestaion and fragmentation of the fragile ecosystems in which they evolved, is problematic. The world is - tragically - running out of room for large wild animals as the human population explodes out of control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brindle</title>
		<link>http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8049</link>
		<dc:creator>Brindle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/#comment-8049</guid>
		<description>Lower right, taking it easy? Looking directly at the camera through the grass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lower right, taking it easy? Looking directly at the camera through the grass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
