Thanks for your input. I think you have spelt it out quite clearly that the technical terms is where the misunderstanding lies. Is there evidence to support that they are a sub-specie. No. Are their DNA different to the Southern Greater Kudu. Yes. Then call it what you like. They are different.
"due to the fact that the wrong information was being distributed/shared (not an uncommon phenomena in the Hunting industry.)"
I just shared the facts from the DNA tests that were done on the very property we used. Why would we be lied to?
I thank you for the information that you have supplied. Very interesting stuff, and I will take the time to read the Thesis, since it is so very close to my heart. The DNA testing that occured, were done on the farm of the first ever registered Outfitter in the Eastern Cape, and a very big conservationist at that. Dr Kevin Robertson from "The Perfect Shot" is quite active with the Professional Hunting school there, or use to be. Maybe he will know some more details of the study. I will see if I can get his opinion on this, as he might have been involved.
Great stuff this! If only we can stop waisting so much energy and time on starting wars and BS and focus it on the things that matter in life.Like hunting Kudu.
Marius thanks, No facts were shared by anyone on this thread except for the hard fact that I have provided, yes they(East Cape Kudu) do form a distinct genetic group together with the Kudu from Northern Namibia and the Kimberly district, this alone should cast aside any notion of having them listed as an Eastern Cape sub species.
Point is simple there is no indication that it has been and scietific proof states exactly the oposite of what has been stated on this thread as far as the sub species should be concerned. I would not refer to it at BS it is part of our everyday interest and the very passion that keeps me going as a true Naturalist. I have not started a war and the very indication from your side suggesting that I might have is to be ridiculed by muself to be frank.
I simply thought that I would correct what had been said, be that as it may I have been the one crucified for sharing very interesting information and providing all with a complete up to date picture. Marius my DNA is different from yours and we are from the same species, Homo Sapiens have no sub species....food for thought.
My very best always.
Jaco just so my Dumb butt understands after reading this nice short book that you have been kind enough to write I did not shoot a Sub-Species (Eastern Greater Kudu) but in sted a Species of it's own????
Originally Posted by Jaco Strauss
Jaco, I think you just need to sit back and read what I am writing.
Starting wars and BS, I was talking about real wars being fought in all parts of the world, while we should all just get along.
Second, please forget about the term sub-specie for just a bit.As you have quoted from your sources and what I am saying, we have agreed that the EC kudu and the SG kudu has different DNA. ( Please , no terms attached)
If we take DNA from the Southern Greater and take DNA from the Cape Kudu, results will tell us which Kudu comes from which area.
So, they are different, are they not? (no terms attached)
I think we harping on too much technicality and not seeing te point
Bob no you have taken a Southern Greater Kudu that lives in the Eastern cape,
Marius we are missing the DNA point completely Having different DNA does not mean that we qualify as a sub species..., nor does it qualify for being regarded as a different species.
Southern Greater is Southern greater (refer to taxonomy) no matter which way you look at it together with the various populations in Southern Africa. This has been proven by the exact mtDNA testing that I have referred to.
Forming a geneticically distinct group together with Northern Namibian and Kimberly Kudu still is no room for being classified as an entity or Sub species, common day science has proven that Kudu originated in Namibia and spread from there,otherwise known as Allopatric fragmentation in which a population is devided into one or more sub populations. What the latter does refer to is that the mentioned Kudu populations as above are the oldest populations as far as Southern greater are concenred in Africa.
My best always.
I got it! I shot a Species not a Sub-Species, even better :rockon: that tells me that RW needs to Re-evaluate it's view on not listing the the Eastern Cape Greater Kudu and listing it under a Species of it's own with the info given by Jaco.
Bob I think you have missed it slightly. please re-evaluate what I have posted thouroughly. As a side note I find it amazing that I am being ridiculed by users on this thread for providing relevant and accurate information, I guess we do not all think along the right lines no do we!
My best always.
Thanks Jaco you just had to pop my bubble.:(
Originally Posted by Jaco Strauss
Once again you head straight for the sub-specie debate, after I asked you to ignore this term, because this is where I feel we are missing each other.
You're sources provided DNA as proof. But so did mine. You have done nicely in your internet research, as I can see you have quoted a couple of websites, while I was present in the discussions of the actual results from the actual testing site.
Sub-Specie has been cut from 4 to between 1 to 3.(Thank You internet research) So, modern day science has changed the history books. Maybe it happens again, to include the East Cape Kudu.
Don't be the guy that said everything that can be invented has been invented. We know what happened to that theory.
Lets just agree to disagree.
You believe your sources with your test results, and I believe the test results from the test-site.
My personal opinion, they are not the same animal.
The following, I have seen with my own eyes. It is a fact that the Southern Greater Kudu that are brought in to Eastern Cape properties, as you say to increase the horn size of our Kudu, takes about 6 years to work out of the system.System being the property. Then after that, the Kudu that come from there are back to the same size than what your regular Eastern Cape Kudu originally were, which basically make it a non-viable option.
This was done on a property not far from where we are, and guess their average size Kudu they are now taking off after 6 years.( Bearing in mind, that the SG Kudu were give a couple of years to spread their genes and have now been hunted, obviously because of their size) If you guessed average EC Kudu sizes, you are correct. So, what is your opinion on this?
Marius, you stated that it has been proven to be a sub species, I showed you current accepted research that proved the exact opposite, I am not willing to argue about semantics, prove the centre for Wildlife management wrong and I will get you a retracting statement from the university of Pretoria. As for internet rersearch I have a degree in Zoology and Botany as well as an Honors (B.Sc) in game and wildife management, so for one I do understand the intercasies of Genetics as well as DNA.
It seems that you are the one dancing around the statement you made, you are following the same Modus oparandi as you have done on another site.
I am asking you again to prove to me where it has been listed as a Sub species as you yourself stated,.... Am I right or am I wrong or did you not state this?
As far as information goes it is a common mistake to assume something before the conclusion has been pondered. If you where to introduce a number of 60 Kudu on a property holding 120 you will only see the effect after 15 - 20 with contant suplementing, keep in mind that the dominat gene on those areas are still overwhelming. It takes time for it to take effect.
I am done with this conversation, pleadse let me know when you have the ability to counter what I have said.
My best always.
So my terminology of Sub-specie is incorrect. Which is why I asked that we get away of the terminology as I realised my mistake early. I am not afraid that to admit if I am incorrect. I made a mistake in the terminology. I'm trying to find the spot where I said it was listed as a sub-specie. Did I ever say it was listed as a sub-specie? Please help me right. What I should have said is that DNA showed the East Cape Kudu to be different to the Southern Greater Kudu, and that Rowland Ward was not prepared to accept it as a new sub-specie. Which is what we were told from the testing-site. I ask the members here to please forgive me for not speaking correctly.
Originally Posted by Jaco Strauss
Regarding the dancing around a statement,If its the site I am thinking of, I admitted to being ill-informed and was helped out nicely to get my facts correct and I am wiser for it , so not sure what dancing around you are talking about. I'm an honest person , and am man enough to admit when I'm wrong.But thanks for the personal attack, I hope you feel a better man for it.
I only hold a small, insignificant Bachelor's Degree of Engineering. So, we do have something in common. Hope this means we can still be friends.
Why can't we just accept that there is a East Cape Kudu category in the hunting records, along with a Southern Greater Kudu category?
If you look at whitetails across the USA. They differ in size, color and dimensions. I'm will to accept that a whitetail in the Midwest, will not look like a whitetail in Texas. Same with kudu in the RSA. A true East Cape Kudu will have a dark cape, less mass on the horns, decent length...generally. And a Kudu shot in the Limpopo Province will be heavy in mass and length...as far a color, I think they are generally lighter colored....but I have seen some really dark ones too (maybe it was because of the rut). Either way they are different. I'm sure the kudu is Northern Namibia look a little different too.
Just my 2 cents.
subｷspeｷcies noun \ˈsəb-ˌspē-shēz, -sēz\
Definition of SUBSPECIES
: a subdivision of a species: as a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs
Now I don't have a PHD but;
Reading page 5 & 6 of the Thesis provided by Jaco would this info it self make them a subspecies or does there have to be a DNA not just looks, size, color and number of stripes?
This is actually quite easy. Scientists dont usually use the term subspecie. Thats because to distinguish different subspecies are as this thread shows very difficult. They have overlapping ranges/areas.
Its the hunting organisations that are keen to put labels on animals of the same specie from different areas, because of differences in apparence and horn size. A good example are the moose in North America. All moose are of the same specie and can interbreed. Due to differences in apparence we are eager to put them I different categories. Thats ok but rises of course the question, where do you set the borders between them?
When I shot my kudu last year in Northern Cape, just south of Kimberley, the ph and the outfitter talked about why they could not classify their kudus as Eastern Cape kudu, because, as they stated, they where exactly the same. In their opinion, their kudus was distinguished from southern greater.
This confirm what was written earlier about distribution of the Easter Cape genepool.
Now, SCI has set the boundaries to East Cape, but maybe it should incorporate all of the Cape provinces?
I think the worst part of any science is the fact that for every knowledgable "expert" there is another equally knowledgeable "expert" there to contradict him. LOL. Every time we discover that something is not as we once beleived the new theory is regarded as absolute fact, that is until the next discovery disproves it. There have been so many changes to classifications of animals over the years and I am sure there are many yet to come. Eland is a good example Taurotragus oryx, formerly referred to as Tragelaphus oryx is now not considered to be related to other spiral horns. An Eland is still an Eland however, the animal itself has not changed.
It is very easy, even if it takes some time(one generation) to find out if it is genes or habitat that influence how a specie or subspecie look like.
Just move a group of one type to a fenced in area where they are the only animals of that specie in the habitat of the other group living outside the fence and see if the animals inside the fence change how they look after a generation to be the same as the group that always have lived there.
If it changes and the groups look more similar, it is a clear indication that it is decided by habitat and not genes. This goes specially for horn growth.
If it doesn't change, then it is most likely genes.
Then the question comes if the difference in genes and looks are large enough to call them subspecies or not.
Scientists tend to disagree on how large the differences need to be before you can call them different subspecies.
And the consensus tends to change with time.
Personally I couldn't care less if the Kudu in East Cape is a subspecie of the southern greater or not:)
I don't care about what the animals I hunt score and if they can get in a book or not.
I want to have an exiting and challenging hunt for a mature animal I think look great.
Very true, and I agree 100% one should then also consider if results are in favour, creating a subspecies not only for the Eastern cape but also the kudu from northern namibia and kimberly as a whole as they share the same features.
It is the hunt that makes it all worth while as all of us have agreed in this particular post.
My best always.