Talk:Uganda lion

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Central and East Africa

@BhagyaMani: Uganda is in East Africa, not Central Africa, so the Uganda lion is geographically an East African lion, not Central African lion. Leo1pard (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bertola et al. 2016 clearly grouped lions in Uganda with the Central African lion group. This seems to have completely escaped your attention. You don't need to teach me where CA and EA is located: I went to school too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them, some Ugandan lions were grouped with the Eastern clade, if you look more closely at this map. Leo1pard (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if northern Uganda is in the central African group and southern Uganda in the eastern group, while central Uganda is not in either. Regardless, Bertola et al (2016) didn't study the Ugandan lion so the map isn't evidence we can use. The Ugandan lion that was studied by Duback (2005) came from Baltimore zoo so that doesn't help us much. However, it clustered with the lions from Aberdare National Park in SW Kenya (near Lake Victoria), which would put it in the eastern group. Also see my comment in Talk:Panthera about Bertola et al (2015) equating the eastern group to P. l. nubica as defined by Hemmer (1974)/Hass et al (2005), which again would put the Uganda lion in the eastern group. Jts1882 | talk 17:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for contemporary info about lions In Uganda. What I found is that lions are surviving only in 3 protected areas, which are all in the W/SW part and contiguous with the Virunga pop. See resp. info in Central African lion#Distribution of populations. This explains lack of samples from N/NE Uganda. Two connected pops are not different ssp. And yes, samples from captive lions of unknown and uncertain origin won't help to resolve the ssp. question. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kidepo Valley National Park is in the northeastern part of Uganda, on the country's border with Kenya and South Sudan, so here is one population that would not be contiguous with the Congo lion in Virunga National Park. Leo1pard (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lions in Congo and Uganda

The Virunga National Park is a long way from "Zandeland" and seems to fall within the East/Southern area in the map of Bertola et al (2016). It is close to the Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda. Lions from Murchison National Park would probably be part of the same more or less contiguous population. However, it looks like the lions in NE Uganda in the Kidepo Valley National Park belong to a different population, although its not clear if they would be contiguous with azandicus lions (Bertola's central group) or with some Kenyan lions (Bertola's NE lions) (I think the later more likely).

The old subspecies may be considered obsolete, but the descriptions of the regional lions attached to particular trinomials still stand as scientific descriptions of populations of lions. The "Ugandan lion" (or nyanzae) description probably can be applied to all lions in the vicinity of Lake Victoria, including the lions in the adjacent part Congo, which are isolated from the lions of NE Congo. We should remember that Congo is mainly tropical forest and that tropical forest is a barrier to lion dispersal. The extent of this forest is thought to be the reason for the initial division between northern and southern lions. Around the periphery of Congo we get incursion from different lion populations in the SW, east and NE (and possibly NW?). In terms of the scientific descriptions of "Congo lions" (azendicus), only the lions in the NE fit this description. Likewise, not all lions in Uganda are "Ugandan lions" (nyanzae). The old scientific descriptions are generally attached to the trinomials, which makes it confusing when the names are no longer recognised as subspecies.

The key question is what the article is mainly about. Is it about lions in Uganda or is it about the lions in the south described as azendicus? Jts1882 | talk 08:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any topographical barrier like ocean, rift or 4000+ m mountain chain between SW and NE Uganda? If not, then the distance of roughly 730 km aerial distance between these 2 regions is still contiguous, i.e. close enough to allow genetic exchange. From NE border of Murchinson Falls to Kidepo Valley is just about 300 km. Maybe we've all seen too many pics of sleeping and yawning lions, and therefore anticipate them not to move about much? I heard of transient leopards travelling 1000+ km. And given that lion nos. decreased so significantly only in the past 30 years, the pops in Congo and Uganda were possibly far closer connected a 100 years ago. Too short a time to develop ssp. characteristics. Note that the locations where 'nyanzae' and 'hollisteri' originated are max. 250 km apart, measured around Lake Victoria, not aerial distance. And Allen admitted that 'azandicus' from Belgian Congo, ca. 5-600 km away from the lake, did not differ in skull size from the Tanzanian 'massaicus'. What is your answer to your key question? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect an article titled "Ugandan lion" to be about the P. l. myanzae (the formally described Ugandan lion), whereas an article about lions in Uganda would be called "Lions in Uganda" or "Ugandan lions". However, I realise this is impractical and the article needs to cover all the lions in Uganda. It also turns out that there is very little genetic data on Ugandan lions so we can't really say very much about their possible affinities.

As for geographical barriers, SW and NE Uganda are separated by the Nile River. Lions are not good swimmers like tigers and jaguars so it could be an effective barrier if wide enough at that point. I also noticed that Ugandan lions fall in a pocket surrounded by eastern and western rift valley arms ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Great_Rift_Valley.svg map), which means they they could be isolated from eastern and southern lions, while intermingling with lions from the north. Some genetic data is needed to resolve this as the only Ugandan lion studied seems to be the one in Baltimore zoo. Jts1882 | talk 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about lions in Uganda, just as the article Central African lion is about lions in Central Africa, and Asiatic lion is about lions in Asia. If the article had to be titled with a trinomen like Panthera leo nyanzae, similar to the article about the Early Middle Pleistocene European cave lion, then it could face similar issues to that article. The issue with the latter is that though the title implies that the cave lion is a subspecies of Panthera leo, one has to acknowledge from recent studies that it need not be a subspecies of Panthera leo, but a sister lineage to it. Leo1pard (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok. then with the last valid ssp. name, for the time being. --BhagyaMani (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani: Last valid ssp. name? Apart from the issue of the CSG's recent classification being over-simplistic, in that leaves the issue of lions in admixture areas unresolved, as you would say, the CSG subsumed lions in East Africa to P. l. melanochaita, so how is P. l. leo valid for the Uganda lion? Leo1pard (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, not only will you have to remove P. l. leo from the introductory statement and box, you will have to do the same for Central African lion, considering what tests say about P. l. melanochaita in certain parts of Central Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]