No need to replace an “anomalous” primate (Primates) with an “anomalous” bear (Carnivora, Ursidae)

Abstract

By means of mitochondrial 12S rRNA sequencing of putative “yeti”, “bigfoot”, and other “anomalous primate” hair samples, a recent study concluded that two samples, presented as from the Himalayas, do not belong to an “anomalous primate”, but to an unknown, anomalous type of ursid. That is, that they match 12S rRNA sequences of a fossil Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), but neither of modern Polar Bears, nor of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos), the closest relative of Polar Bears, and one that occurs today in the Himalayas. We have undertaken direct comparison of sequences; replication of the original comparative study; inference of phylogenetic relationships of the two samples with respect to those from all extant species of Ursidae (except for the Giant Panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and two extinct Pleistocene species; and application of a non-tree-based population aggregation approach for species diagnosis and identification. Our results demonstrate that the very short fragment of the 12S rRNA gene sequenced by Sykes et al. is not sufficiently informative to support the hypotheses provided by these authors with respect to the taxonomic identity of the individuals from which these sequences were obtained. We have concluded that there is no reason to believe that the two samples came from anything other than Brown Bears. These analyses afforded an opportunity to test the monophyly of morphologically defined species and to comment on both their phylogenetic relationships and future efforts necessary to advance our understanding of ursid systematics.

Evolutionary history of enigmatic bears in the Tibetan Plateau–Himalaya region and the identity of the yeti

“…[ 37 ] suggested that a previously unrecognized bear species or possibly a hybrid between brown bear and polar bear exists in the Himalayas. However, as also demonstrated by others [ 39 , 40 ], the short 12S rRNA gene fragment is insufficiently informative to determine precise taxonomic identity, particularly among closely related species, although it can be a useful screening marker to assess preliminary species affinities. We isolated DNA and assembled a complete mitogenome from a hair sample (collected in Ladakh, India, and named ‘YHB’ in this study), which based on their shared collection locality and other anecdotal evidence obtained from Icon Films, our sample source, may come from the same specimen that Sykes et al [ 37 ] speculated represents an unknown or hybrid bear.…”

“…Based on a short fragment of the mtDNA 12S rRNA gene from two samples collected in Ladakh, India and Bhutan, respectively, and a 100% match to a sequence recovered from a subfossil polar bear [ 38 ], Sykes et al [ 37 ] speculated that an unclassified bear species or hybrid of polar bear and brown bear might be present in the Tibetan Plateau–Himalaya region. However, this speculation was critiqued by others [ 39 , 40 ], and their phylogenetic analyses using the sequences from Sykes et al and other available Ursidae sequences did not rule out the possibility that the samples belonged to brown bear. Thus, to get accurate species identification, comprehensive phylogenetic analyses using genetic information from more variable and informative loci are needed.…”

Giant pandas (Carnivora: Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and living hominoids converge on lumbar vertebral adaptations to orthograde trunk posture

“…Further, the phylogenetic relationships of some ursid taxa in our sample are unresolved. (Kutschera et al, 2014), and the positioning of U. thibetanus as the basal ursine, with H. malayanus and U. americanus as sister taxa (Gutiérrez and Pine, 2015).…”