THE POSITION OF JACKALS IN THE CANIS GENUS AND LIFE-HISTORY OF THE GOLDEN JACKAL ( CANIS AUREUS L . ) IN BULGARIA AND ON THE BALKANS NIKOLAI
THE POSITION OF JACKALS IN THE CANIS GENUS AND LIFE-HISTORY OF THE GOLDEN JACKAL ( CANIS AUREUS L . ) IN BULGARIA AND ON THE BALKANS NIKOLAI
复制标题
豺狼在犬属中的地位以及保加利亚和巴尔干半岛的金豺 (Canis Aureus L.) 的生活史 尼古拉
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jackal Canis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jackal Canis
犬属的分类和进化还没有得到充分的阐明，尽管有大量的文献和古老的和现代的研究一直吸引着人们的兴趣。这是由于相对未知的犬科动物的古生物学，以及它们的形态，被认为是熟悉的。它们进化过程中的形态同质性和平行性是研究的另一个难点。在Cams属和Canidae科的系统学观点长期相对稳定之后，提出了关于这些分类单元内部关系的新概念（L a ngu th, 1975; 1 u t t n-B r et al., 1976; Van Gel d r, 1978）。这些概念是基于经典形态学，以及新的分类分析方法。然而，这些新的和不同的方法在其分类结论中是相互矛盾的，因此更多地指出了分类的弱点，而不是提供解决方案。关于犬属范围的意见是矛盾的（,1985）。根据Van Gel d r（1978）所表达的统一分类，将迄今为止被普遍接受的犬属赋予多型犬属中的一个亚属地位。根据这种观点，后者包括许多亚属，通常被认为是犬科的属。该分类是基于犬科物种杂交的一些数据和随后（相当有争议的）关于它们的等级和分类关系的概念。关于Dusicyon与Canis的关系，以及simensis、C. lupaster和C. rufus的分类地位等问题尚未得到解决。与此同时，将金犬与狼和土狼区分开来，并将其与C. adusstus和mesomelas联系在一起的想法并不新鲜，然而，它仍然存在争议（,,1985）。Heller（1914）和后来的Allen（1939）将豺狼归为一个共同的属，然而这方面的标准显然是不充分的（C 1, t n-B rock et al., 1976）。（1931）将金黄色葡萄球菌归入一个单独的亚属。n p等人（1967）和后来的GluttonBrock等人（1976）注意到，金黄色葡萄的特征使其成为该属最典型的代表。这就支持了这样一种观点，即该属的物种过于接近，而且是单型的，不能被放在单独的亚属中（t.h. et al., 1967）。（印刷）相信
The taxonomy and evolution of genus Canis is not sufficiently elucidated, regardless of the considerable literature and old and contemporary studies on this group which has always attracted interest. This is due to the relatively unknown paleontology of the Canis species, as well as to their morphology, considered familiar. Morphological homogeneity and parallelisms in their evolution are an additional difficulty of their study. Following a long period of relative stability in the views on the systematics of genus Cams and family Canidae new concepts on the relations within these taxons were voiced (L a nggu t h, 1975; 1 u t t n-B r et al., 1976; Van Gel d r, 1978). These concepts are based on classical morphology, as well as new methods of taxonomical analysis. These new and different approaches are however contradictory in their taxonomic conclusions, thus pointing more to weakness of the classification than offering a solution. The opinions on the range of the genus Canis are contradictory(, 1985). According to the unified classification expressed by Van Gel d r (1978) the so far generally accepted genus Canis is given the status of a subgenus within the polytypic genus Canis. The latter includes, according to this view, a number of subgenera, considered commonly as genera of the family Canidae. The classification is based on some data on the hybridization of species of Canidae and the subsequent (rather controversial) concepts on their rank and taxonomic relations. The question of the relationship between Dusicyon and Canis, as well as the taxonomic status of simensis, C. lupaster and C. rufus has not been resolved. At the same time, the idea of the distancing of Canis aureus from wolves and the coyote, and linking it with C. adustus and mesomelas in a common group is not new, however, it remains controversial(,, 1985). Heller (1914) and later Allen (1939), place jackals in a common genus Thos, however the criteria for this are clearly insufficient (C 1 u t t n-B rock et al., 1976). (1931) places C. aureus in a separate subgenus. n p et al. (1967), and later GluttonBrock et al. (1976), note that the features of aureus make it the most typical representative of the genus. This gives ground to the opinion, that the species of the genus are too close and uni-typic to be placed in separate subgenera ( T H p et al., 1967). (in print) believes