Redefining introgressed protected mammals: when is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo a wild dog?

Abstract

Interbreeding between protected species and their domestic forms presents a conundrum for wildlife managers and legislators with respect to both defining the taxa concerned and enacting or enforcing conservation measures. Recent research on two species geographically distant but with highly analogous histories, the wildcat (Felis silvestris) in Scotland and the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) in Australia, illustrates the challenges faced. Introgression has left the contemporary wild form of both species difficult to distinguish from many of their domesticated forms. Furthermore, historical definitions, and the protective legislation based on them, have been rendered obsolete by subsequent anthropogenic environmental change. We argue that a new approach is necessary for defining mammalian species in the face of introgression with their domestic forms and environmental change, including persecution. Protecting animals for where and how they live, and for their cultural or ecosystem function value rather than focusing on their appearance, offers the best solution for maintaining their conservation status. W R 0 2 0 4 5 R e d e f i n i n g i n t r o g r e s s e d p r o t e c t e d m a m m a l s M . J . Da n i e l s a n d L . C o r b e t t

Bayesian analyses of admixture in wild and domestic cats (Felis silvestris) using linked microsatellite loci

“…Habitat modifications and animal translocations increased the rates of hybridization and introgression, raising conservation concerns especially when hybridization occurs between protected species and their domesticated forms (Allendorf et al . 2001; Daniels & Corbett 2003).…”

An evolutionary analysis of cAMP-specific Phosphodiesterase 4 alternative splicing

“…When introductions result in hybridization with native species, new dimensions are added to conservation issues. While hybridization and subsequent introgression has been characterized as a threat simply because replacement of native by introduced alleles is philosophically undesirable [12,24], or might compromise the legal status of protected native species [25], more objectively detrimental impacts are also possible. Hybridization can create novel invasive phenotypes with negative ecological impacts [26-28], or hybrid dysfunction might make admixed populations more vulnerable to extinction [12,29,30].…”

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

“…With the development of more sensitive microsatellite markers, it is theoretically possible to distinguish purebred Dingoes from Dingo-dog hybrids and feral dog breeds (Wilton et al 1999;Wilton 2001). However, Daniels and Corbett (2003) and Elledge et al (2006) question the validity of this method because any contemporary 'pure' Dingo is potentially contaminated through some degree of introgression of modern dog genes, since European settlement. Stephens et al (2015) recently documented strong geographic structure in microsatellite profiles of Dingoes and feral dogs across Australia, and made a convincing case that remote parts of central and western Australia support the only 'pure' Dingo populations and that all southern and eastern populations are interbred with modern Domestic Dogs to varying degrees, irrespective of their appearance.…”