All the World's Antelopes: Waterbuck and marsh-dwellers

Kob

One of the features of the reduncinine subfamily of antelopes, as opposed to most of the other groupings, is that they require ready access to standing water. Many of them, such as the reedbucks, are grassland animals, avoiding the driest areas, but otherwise living in plains and mountains, only retreating to riverbanks and marshes during the dry season. Others may, if anything, be even more tied to the water.

The kob (Kobus kob) lives across the savannah belt south of the Sahara, from Senegal to Uganda. It is said to never be seen more than 10 km (6 miles) from standing water, and usually much less. The unusually blunt scientific name comes from two different authors, with Charles Hamilton Smith having added the first half in 1840, after the animal had been originally described (as Antilope kob) by Erxleben much earlier, in 1777.

All the World's Antelopes: Reedbuck and Rhebok

Bohor reedbuck

Quite where, within the larger bovid family, the reedbucks belong was long a matter of contention. They are medium-sized antelopes, tending to prefer habitats with plenty of water, distinguished by the fact that not only their visible horns, but also the bony cores on the inside, have transverse ridges running round them. The detailed structure of their teeth has some resemblance to that of the true bovines (that is, cows, bison, and the like) but it's hard to see that as anything other than parallel evolution. 

The most widely followed scheme in the late 20th century placed them with the grazing antelopes, such as sables and their kin, but even then there was a suspicion that this was only because nobody knew what else to do with them. Once we were able to do detailed genetic analysis, it turned out that they are pretty much in a group of their own, not especially close to anything, having diverged from the ancestors of the true grazing antelopes before that group diverged from the goats. Our best guess is that this happened between 16 and 14 million years ago; there are antelopes with longer lineages, but not many.

All the World's Antelopes: Sables and Other Horse-Antelopes

Sable antelope (male)

The hippotragines are one of several small subfamilies of antelope. Small that is, in terms of number of species, because physically they are quite large. The name literally translates as "horse-goat", but that second part is often used taxonomically as a term for antelopes, so "horse-antelope" might be closer to the intent. It was coined in 1845, partly on account of the physical build of the animals, with their long legs and muscular, horse-like necks.

The subfamily includes the oryxes and gemsbok, but arguably the most horse-like members of the group are the sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) and its closest relatives. Sable antelopes stand around 140 cm (4'7") at the withers, which is almost exactly the official height that separates full-size horses from ponies. They weigh between 160 kg and 230 kg (350 and 510 lbs), which is well within the range for domesticated ponies, indicating a slighter build than animals bred, in part, to bear the weight of humans. Their shape, however, is quite horse-like, an effect accentuated by the presence of a clear mane down the back of the neck.

All the World's Antelopes: Gemsbok and Oryx

Gemsbok

As I have discussed previously, there is no such thing as an antelope, in the strict scientific sense. That is to say, they do not form a natural group of organisms, being defined only as those members of the cattle family that aren't sheep, goats, or obviously cow-like. This covers a wide range of animals, some closely related, but others much less so.

I've previously looked at the various species of gazelle, and at the spiral-horned antelopes (which are actually "bovines"). Now it's time to look at the others.

Linnaeus' original catalogue of scientific names, published in 1758, included five species that we would now call antelopes. In that catalogue, they are listed as goats, based primarily on the shape of their horns, and therefore sit alongside the chamois and ibex. Two of these, the dorcas gazelle and the blackbuck, are now placed within the gazelle subfamily, while two others are relatively small "dwarf antelopes", which I will cover later.

Euplerids: Falanoucs and Fanalokas

Fanaloka

The relationships of the native Madagascan carnivores were uncertain before the advent of genetic testing at the end of the 20th century. The majority were assumed to be mongooses, since that is very much what they looked like, but three species didn't quite fit the pattern. 

Two of these were, so far as anyone could tell from their physical appearance and habits, civets. They were often placed in their own subfamily, reflecting their distance from other civets, but nonetheless, they were thought to belong among the viverrids. Following genetic studies in 2003, however, it became clear that they belonged in the same group as (i.e. shared a unique common ancestor with) the Madagascan "mongooses". Since some of them clearly weren't mongooses, and since they had diverged from the real ones so long ago, the subfamily was split off and promoted to full family level, now including both the mongoose-like and civet-like species.

Euplerids: The Not-Mongooses of Madagascar

Ring-tailed vontsira

There are around 35 currently recognised species of mongoose, spread between Asia and continental Africa. For the most part, they look fairly similar, with most being instantly identifiable as such. For most of the 20th century, however, they were also thought to live on Madagascar. In the last couple of decades, genetic studies have revealed that the Madgascan species, while related to the mongoose family proper, belong in a group of their own. That's partly because they diverged so far back in time, but also because that group includes some animals that manifestly aren't mongooses.

Today, in order to distinguish what we used to call "Madagascan mongooses" from the real sort, we tend to use the local Malagasy word and describe them as "vontsiras".

Viverrids: Civets of Southeast Asia

Large Indian civet

Our definition of the Viverridae family has, as I noted previously, undergone some ups and downs over the centuries. It was first named, in 1821, for the genus Viverra, which, when it was first described, had contained five species. Even by 1821, four of those had been moved elsewhere - and three are no longer even in the family. But, by the rules of scientific naming, unless we scrap the family entirely, Viverra must remain within it. Which leaves one species that, in a sense, defines the family, and against which everything else in it is compared.

That species is the large Indian civet (Viverra zibetha). Thus, even though "viverra" literally means "ferret" in Latin, this means that we can reasonably call the Viverridae "the civet family", as I will be doing from here on in.

Delphinids: Dolphins in the Irrawaddy

Irrawaddy dolphin

While we normally think of dolphins as being sea-dwelling animals, there are no fewer than eight species referred to as such that are commonly found in rivers. Six of these, however, are not true members of the "dolphin family", or Delphinidae, their ancestors having split off from that group even before those of some of our modern whales did. Of the two exceptions, one is entirely freshwater, and lives in South America. The other is more varied in its habitat and lives in Asia.

The Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) was first described in 1866, from a specimen caught, not in a river, but off the northeast coast of India. We now know that this is at the far western edge of its range, and that it is also found all along the coast from northeast India, around the Malaysian Peninsula, to as far east as southern Vietnam. It is also found further south, around Borneo and along the north coasts of Sumatra and Java. In 1999, a very small population was discovered in the Philippines, living in a couple of isolated bays very far from the remainder of the animal's range, presumably the result of some having been swept away in a storm decades or even centuries before.

Delphinids: Small Dolphins of Shallow Southern Seas

Commerson's dolphin

While related, dolphins and porpoises are regarded as distinct types of animals. Each is placed in its own family, with the two separating at least 15 million years ago. However, telling the two apart is not always easy, at least on a superficial look at their external anatomy. Porpoises are, generally speaking, smaller than dolphins and they have a blunt nose rather than a 'beak'. The problem is that we can say exactly the same about some species that really are dolphins.

In 1766, naturalist Philibert Commerson accompanied explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville on what would become the first successful French circumnavigation of the globe. While passing through the Straits of Magellan the following year, he spotted an unusual-looking dolphin close to the ship and sent a description of it back to France. (As a side note, later on in the voyage, it was discovered, much to the crew's shock, that Commerson's assistant was secretly a woman; she is now remembered as the first woman to circumnavigate the globe).

Delphinids: Humpback Dolphins

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin

The genus Stenella, to which many of the closest relatives of the well-known bottlenose and common dolphins belong is, genetically speaking, a mess. A combination of interbreeding and rapid speciation have made it very difficult to determine how its family tree should be constructed or if, indeed, there is even a clear pattern to find. 

Our best evidence suggests that it probably isn't a "real" group, in the sense of one consisting of a common ancestor and all of its descendants. That's because three other genera of dolphin appear to be descended from that common ancestor, forming part of the same cluster of what we might describe as "typical-looking" dolphins. The common and bottlenose dolphins form two of these interspersed groups, while the third is represented by the humpback dolphins.

As it turns out, their classification has also had to undergo significant revision in recent years, albeit for different reasons.

Gorilla Communities

It is, I would hope, well-known that the closest living genus to our own is that of the chimpanzees and bonobos. The second-closest is, of course, that of the gorillas. There are two species of gorilla, each with two subspecies, and both are considered "critically endangered" - literally on the verge of extinction. For one species, this is, as one would expect, largely due to their tiny surviving population and restricted range. 

There are many factors that we need to consider when attempting to reverse this, and some of them also have a bearing on the evolution of our own species. Among these is the question of how gorilla groups are socially constructed and how they interact. It turns out that here, we can't just consider "gorillas" en masse because the two species behave in very different ways. For example, while one species can have multiple silverback males in the same troop, this is rare (but not unheard of) in the other.

Antilopine Antelopes: The Largest Gazelles

Grant's gazelle

The word "gazelle", as used in everyday English is a little vague, referring to a general concept of slim, agile, antelopes but not to anything with a precise scientific definition. Strictly speaking, however, it refers to a specific group of closely related animals, and some species that are commonly called "gazelles" strictly speaking aren't. During the 20th century, all true gazelles were placed in a single genus, Gazella, and it's this that defines the more rigid definition of what does and doesn't count. 

In more recent decades, Gazella has been split in three, with the resurrection of two 19th-century names as "new" genera. The original Gazella is widespread, including animals from both Asia and North Africa, but the other two are exclusively African. Eudorcas (literally "true antelope" in Ancient Greek) includes Thomson's gazelle of the Serengeti and its various relatives, while the remaining genus is Nanger, whose name apparently comes from a local Senegalese word for one of the species.

The Other One: Red Pandas

Over the course of this year, I have looked at all the species of the raccoon and skunk families, two groups of smallish carnivorous mammals that are mostly confined to the Americas. These two families are themselves related, forming part of a larger group called the "musteloids", traditionally ranked as a "superfamily". The group is named for a third family within it, the mustelids or "weasel family", which contains a much wider - and more widespread - group of species, including otters, badgers, and wolverines. 

The musteloid superfamily, however, also contains one other living species that does not fit into any of the three main families: the red panda (Ailurus fulgens). Six years ago, I took a look at the history of Western knowledge of this animal, and of how it relates to other mammal families. The upshot of that, you may recall, is that there is broad agreement that the red panda is the only living species in its family, distinct from raccoons, skunks, and weasels although quite how was unclear. Since I wrote that, a further study has come out supporting the evolutionary tree I described as "the current best bet", but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that at least one contradictory study has also been published. It's perhaps fair to say that the four families of musteloids all appeared fairly suddenly at around the same time (likely around the Grande Coupure) and the exact sequence of events is difficult to disentangle.

Cheetahs and Wild Sheep

The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) is surely one of the most familiar of African animals, due in large part to their prominence in wildlife documentaries such as Cheetah Family & Me. They are charismatic, distinctive, and not especially rare or difficult to find. Unlike, say, tigers, they are not internationally listed as an endangered species, although their population has declined rapidly enough over the last few decades that they do qualify for the lesser rating of "threatened" or "vulnerable" species. 

This does, however, disguise some significant regional variation.

How we should divide the cheetah into subspecies is not absolutely clear. From at least the 1970s, five subspecies were recognised, Two of those were merged in 2017, on the grounds that the East African form could not be reliably separated from its southern relative genetically. Even then, cheetahs have so little genetic variation across their range - due to an apparent population bottleneck when they almost died out at the end of the Last Ice Age - that support for the existence of two of the other subspecies remains a little shaky. Still, four subspecies is, for the time being, the general consensus.

Decline of the Sea Otters

Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) are an endangered species, native to the coasts of the northern Pacific from Japan to California. I've discussed them in detail before, but suffice it to say here that they are remarkable creatures, able to survive without setting foot on land, digging no dens as other otters do, and even giving birth at sea. They also have the densest fur of any mammal, making it especially valuable.

Which, of course, explains how they became an endangered species in the first place.

Humans have been hunting sea otters for their fur for many centuries, but for much of history, this was small scale, with the local tribes being unable to make any lasting dent in their numbers even if they had wished to. Estimates for the worldwide population of sea otters prior to the 18th century are naturally difficult to come by, but it may have been as high as 300,000. The herald of coming doom came in 1741.

The Raccoon Family: Coatis

White-nosed coati

The common raccoon is the only member of the family whose scientific name dates back to the official dawn of biological taxonomy in 1758. However, people continued sending him new specimens to catalogue and, just eight years later, in a later edition of the same work, Linnaeus added two further species that we would now also place in the raccoon family - albeit, he initially described them as civets.

These two animals were coatis (or "coatimundis"), with one first identified from Mexico, and the other from Brazil. They were given their own genus by Gottlieb Storr in 1780 when he first named the raccoon family. It's probably fair to say that, to modern eyes, Storr's classification seems the more reasonable of the two; coatis look a lot more like raccoons than they do like civets.

The Raccoon Family: The True Raccoons

Common raccoon

While the raccoon family contains more species than most people likely realise, by far its best-known example is the animal for which it is named. The common raccoon (Procyon lotor), alternatively known as the "northern raccoon" or simply "the raccoon" was the first species in the family to be scientifically described, no doubt because it's not only common and widespread, but because it's a very distinctive animal. Everyone must surely be familiar with what they look like, and, if you're North American, there's a decent chance that's from first-hand experience.

The common raccoon is found across almost the whole of the contiguous United States, barring only some of the drier parts of the Great Basin, as well as across southern Canada and virtually all of Mexico and Central America. Furthermore, raccoons were introduced to Germany as a hunting animal in 1927 and, with the help of others that escaped from fur farms, since around the 1970s they have been expanding rapidly across Europe. Over the last couple of decades, they have established populations from Spain and France in the west across to Russia and Ukraine in the east. In the 1990s, they were also introduced to Japan and they have also been introduced to Uzbekistan and other parts of Central Asia, probably following escapes from fur farms.

Leaf-Eating Monkeys: Leading by a Nose

Proboscis monkey (male)

Perhaps the most distinctive and well-known of all the colobine monkeys is the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus). Sufficiently distinctive that it's hard to confuse it with anything else, it was first described as a species all the way back in 1787 by botanist Friedrich von Wurmb, then working for the Dutch East India Company, and given its own genus in 1812.

Indeed, it is strange enough that, during the 20th century, it was assumed to represent a very early side-branch in colobine evolution, existing outside all the other groups in the subfamily. That wasn't just because of its odd appearance, but also because it had two extra pairs of chromosomes to every other colobine monkey. But it turns out that that's a false signal and that, not only are proboscis monkeys a relatively recent branch within the subfamily, their closest relatives include the snub-nosed monkeys whose noses are noted for being extraordinarily short.

Leaf-Eating Monkeys: Monkeys on the Mountainsides

Golden snub-nosed monkey

Much of eastern China is dominated by two great river basins: the Yellow River in the north and the Yangtze in the south. In the western parts of the country, the upper reaches of the two basins are separated by the Qinling Mountains, running eastward from the vast Tibetan Plateau. And here, in addition to many other unique animals and plants, we find a rather strange species of monkey.

This is the golden snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana) and its oddity merely begins with its unusual appearance. As the name implies, its fur is mostly golden, ranging from a brownish-red hue to a much brighter golden-yellow. Contrasting stripes of black fur run down the outer edges of the limbs and there are white patches on the back of the thighs. All of these colour patterns are brighter in the males, which are also noticeably larger than the females, indicating that these are likely used in sexual signalling - something supported by the fact that the genitalia also have a contrasting dark colour.

Leaf-Eating Monkeys: The Colourful Doucs of Vietnam

Red-shanked douc

Modern genetic analysis has shown that the leaf-eating monkeys of the Old World consist of three, related, evolutionary branches. Two of these, the colobus monkeys of Africa, and the langurs of Asia, had long been recognised as distinct, but the third was not always so. The monkeys belonging to this branch had, for the most part, previously been considered to be langurs, or at least part of the langur line, but it turns out that they split off from the others early on. Because of the comparative recency of this discovery, this third group doesn't have any distinctive common name and nobody seems to have come up with a scientific one, either. ("Rhinopithecinini" would seem the obvious choice to me, but one can see why nobody bothered).

So, instead, this group, when scientists need to refer to it, ends up being called the "odd-nosed monkeys". Even then, not all of them have noses that look (at least to me) especially odd, and this is most clearly true of the doucs.