The overnamed hartebeest and the undernamed wildebeest of the Kalahari and northern Namibia, reframed

@grinnin

Over a large area in the western parts of southern Africa, a mislabelled hartebeest (https://www.alamy.com/red-hartebeest-alcelaphus-buselaphus-caama-kgalagadi-transfrontier-park-south-africa-image401312871.html) coexists with a mislabelled wildebeest (https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/blue-wildebeest-gnu-side-portrait-standing-in-the-warm-soft-morning-light-gm1251294097-365127640?phrase=blue%20wildebeest).

And they have been mislabelled in opposite ways.

HARTEBEEST

'Alcelaphus buselaphus selbornei' is a misleading name, because

• selbornei is not a real subspecies, the name being redundant, and
• regardless of the validity of 'selbornei', 'buselaphus' is also the wrong species-name for the red hartebeest.

So, the red hartebeest has been doubly 'overnamed'. It is not a subspecies of Alcelaphus buselaphus (an extinct species restricted to North Africa), and selbornei is not a true subspecies, anyway.

The real name of the hartebeest of the Kalahari and northern Namibia is simple: Alcelaphus caama.

WILDEBEEST

The problem with the wildebeest of the same area is, in a sense, a converse one.

'Connochaetes taurinus taurinus' is a misleading name, because

• taurinus is a real subspecies, but it is not the one that coexists with the red hartebeest, and
• taurinus is a real species, but it is restricted to southern Africa, not extending to East Africa.

So, the western wildebeest has been doubly 'undernamed'. It is more than merely a southern form of a widely-distributed species (extending to East Africa), and it is more than merely the same wildebeest as occurs in the eastern parts of southern Africa.

The real name of the wildebeest of the Kalahari and northern Namibia is complex: Connochaetes taurinus mattosi.

The following illustrate the falsely differentiated hartebeest and the falsely undifferentiated wildebeest.

HARTEBEEST

This is the typical appearance of Alcelaphus caama: https://matlabas.co.za/red-hartebeest/.

Please note the dark markings on the shoulder and haunch.

This is the appearance of 'selbornei': https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-red-hartebeest-86663497.html?imageid=283D0F6E-3889-4AC1-A3A9-BAE00EC7F200&p=167797&pn=4&searchId=2a1f9a4c2eedcb2479f4b6ee20d118b3&searchtype=0 and https://es.123rf.com/photo_80146200_red-hartebeest-forrajeando-addo-elephant-national-park-eastern-cape-sud%C3%A1frica.html?vti=mrg5kps8d5ojsz19kg-2-93 and https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-video-red-hartebeest-antelope-walking-alcelaphus-buselaphus-mokala-national-park-south-africa-video51134755.

Please note the lack of dark markings on the shoulder and haunch.

But this is just individual variation, not a distinctive subspecies.

WILDEBEEST

Please see https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/milewski/54306-how-one-of-the-most-familiar-of-african-large-mammals-came-to-be-unrecognised#, and several other associated Posts.

This is the typical appearance of Connochaetes taurinus mattosi: https://stock.adobe.com/images/blue-wildebeest-at-waterhole-kalahari-desert/76622916?as_campaign=ftmigration2&as_channel=dpcft&as_campclass=brand&as_source=ft_web&as_camptype=acquisition&as_audience=users&as_content=closure_asset-detail-page and https://www.freeart.com/artwork/art-print/blue-wildebeest_fa8453694.html and https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bluewildebeest-connochaetes-taurinus-mabuasehube-kalahari-desert-1548289592 and https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/blue-wildebeest-is-seen-on-january-02-2020-in-kalahari-news-photo/1201531687?phrase=blue%20desert%20wildebeest&adppopup=true and https://www.ardeaprints.com/blue-wildebeest-foraging-kalahari-shrub-1305630.html#modalClose.

Please note the upright mane and dark beard (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/86621977) - which are consistent among individuals.

This is the appearance of Connochaetes 'taurinus' in East Africa: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Blue_Wildebeest%2C_Ngorongoro.jpg.

Please note the lax mane and pale beard.

The former is not just individual variation. Instead, it is a distinctive, western, subspecies of a distinctive, southern African, species.

The name 'selbornei' has been repeatedly refuted and discredited, by Dolan (1965), by Smithers (1971), and by me (https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/milewski/71340-the-supposedly-extinct-cape-hartebeest-not-a-real-subspecies-but-just-individual-variation-in-alcelaphus-caama), in each case using an independent set of comparisons. Yet it limps on, being cited in photo captions to this day - like a metaphorical zombie.

The name mattosi is a valid name, that happens to have been overlooked and sidelined. Far from being a zombie, it is like a baby, ready to be born.

SUMMARY

So, to those labelling photos of hartebeests and wildebeests in e.g. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and Etosha National Park, please

• bury the name 'selbornei', for the hartebeest - regardless of how pale the animal may be, and
• bring the name mattosi, for the wildebeest, into the light - in recognition of its distinctive mane and beard.

Also please see the comments in https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/85173815.

Posted on October 21, 2022 05:55 PM by milewski