Talk:Kouprey

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.225.82 (talk • contribs)

Some new work suggests that it isn't a separate species at all: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/nu-nbd091506.php referring to Journal of Zoology.

The result of the analysis is controversial: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N37/shorts2.html. Kouprey is larger than both banteng and zebu, and the shape of its horns is distinctively different from both. So, it is even more likely a biased result.

Actually it is not strange at all that the Kouprey is larger than both banteng and Zebu, this happens all the time in hybrid species, take for example the Liger, a hybrid created by mixing lion with tiger, the liger makes both the lion and the tiger look tiny in comparison. Dionyseus 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add the reference below to this page:

G. J. Galbreath, J. C. Mordacq, F. H. Weiler, 2006. Genetically solving a zoological mystery: was the kouprey (Bos sauveli) a feral hybrid? Journal of Zoology 270 (4): 561–564.

Although Gary Galbreath and his colleagues say that the Kouprey may be merely a domestic hybrid, other scientists, including Alexandre Hassanin, disagree, saying that while the kouprey interbred with the banteng (Bos javanicus), it did exist as a wild species. More information can be found at http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kouprey-debate/. When Hassanin et. al. (2001) performed their DNA analysis to resolve the relationships of Pseudonovibos spiralis within the bovid family, they found the Kouprey to be a valid species of bovid, rather than a domestic hybrid. Does Robert Timm, who accepts the existence of P. spiralis as a wild bovid species, consider the Kouprey to be also a wild species?

Hassanin, A., Seveau, A., Thomas, H., Bocherens, H., Billiou, D. and Nguyen, B.X. 2001. Evidence from DNA that the mysterious 'linh duong' (Pseudonovibos spiralis) is not a new bovid. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Série III Sciences de la Vie 324: 71-80. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Done, thanks for the link. Dionyseus 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add this reference to this page:

Hassanin, A., and Ropiquet, A. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Bovidae, Bovinae) and the taxonomic status of the kouprey, Bos sauveli Urbain 1937. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33(3):896-907.

The abstract of this paper reads:

The kouprey is a very rare bovid species of the Indochinese peninsula, and no living specimen has been described for a long time, suggesting that it is possibly extinct. Its systematic position within the tribe Bovini remains confused since the analyses of morphological characters have led to several conflicting hypotheses. Some authors have also suggested that it could be a hybrid species produced by the crossing of the banteng with gaur, zebu, or water buffalo. Here we performed a molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini to determine the taxonomic status of the kouprey. DNA was extracted from the holotype specimen preserved in the MNHN collections. Phylogenetic analyses were carried out on a matrix including all the taxonomic diversity described in the tribe Bovini, and 2065 nucleotide characters, representing three different markers, i.e., the promotor of the lactoferrin and two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and subunit II of the cytochrome c oxidase). The results show that the kouprey belongs to the subtribe Bovina, and that three different clades can be evidenced into this group: the first includes the domestic ox, zebu, and European bison; the second incorporates the yak and American bison; and the third contains the kouprey, banteng and gaur. All hypotheses involving hybridization for the origin of the kouprey can be rejected, confirming that it is a real wild species. Molecular datings and biogeographic inferences suggest that the kouprey diverged from banteng and gaur during the Plio-Pleistocene of Asia. In addition, several molecular signatures were detected in the cytochrome b gene, permitting a molecular identification of the kouprey. We propose a conservation project based on a molecular taxonomy approach for tracking the kouprey in Indochina in order to determine whether some populations still survive in the wild. 72.194.116.63 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 20.47 7 March 2007Reply

Pretty clear-cut if you read the new Hassanin et al paper. The mistake of Galbreath et al was not to include a geographically diverse enough banteng sample. As it turns out, the kouprey is almost certainly valid... and the local bantengs are actually descended from kouprey-banteng hybrids, so they have some kouprey DNA. What apparently had happened was that some time during the last ice age, at least once but probably more often a banteng bull mated with a kouprey cow which became pregnant and gave birth to a viable hybrid calf. This did not only survive but happened to mate not with koupreys but with bantengs, introducing the mtDNA of the kouprey into the Cambodian banteng population. The descendants of this hybrid (or these hybrids) were later domesticated.

As mtDNA recombination is exceedingly rare, it is likely that such hybridization occurred not only once or twice, but with a certain frequency in the Pleistocene. Because a considerable number of bantengs of Cambodia have a great-great-great-... grandmother that was a kouprey. Which is highly improbable if only one F1 hybrid calf ever survived; any male hybrids would not show up in the mtDNA phylogeny at all! (but see Haldane's Rule - male hybrids might have been sterile; we don't know and it's likely we'll never find out). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the definition of 'ox' elsewhere on Wikipedia is "a bovine trained as a draft animal," ^[1] is it really accurate to call this animal a forest-dwelling ox?

173.179.45.84 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Timothy BoucherReply

Might have been a mistranslation from Cambodian. Changed to bovine species --101.109.228.89 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anybody else find this odd? Drsruli (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply