Bos primigenius suxianensis

The classic convention is that there are three subspecies of aurochs – Bos primigenius primigenius, the European one, Bos primigenius namadicus, the Indian one and Bos primigenius africanus, the African one. Here is a chart for the distribution of the subspecies: 

As you see, material from Central and East Asia are included in the European subspecies primigenius. In western literature, the East Asian aurochs material is described as very similar to that of Europe (van Vuure, 2005). 

However, there is Asian literature that is barely recognized in the western scientific community that assigns the material to its own subspecies, Bos primigenius suxianensis [1]. A 2018 study found that aurochs remains were pretty abundant in Neolithic China, and that much of the material has been wrongly assigned to Bison previously. It was also found that East Asian aurochs belonged to a unique haplotype (haplotype C) and therefore were genetically distinct from other aurochs populations [2]. Chinese aurochs were probably hunted, and most likely also hunted to extinction as were the European populations. 

Not only were those East Asian populations genetically distinct, the bone material that is available on the web shows some morphological differences to the European subspecies. The horns are always long and more upright than what is average in the European population, and the shape is slightly different as well. They do not curve inwards that strongly, and they curve more upwards at the base. You see that in this and these specimen. Also, the nasal bones are somewhat raised and more convex than in the European subspecies. You see that in this Chinese specimen and the Baikal skull. 

I did a life reconstruction of the specimen linked above: 

 

Life reconstruction of Bos primigenius suxianensis

Note the different horn shape and the convex snout. Nothing is known about the coat colouration of East Asian aurochs, but for this drawing I assumed it had the same colour as the European subspecies. 

So it seems that Central and East Asian aurochs were genetically and also morphologically distinct populations, justifying its subspecies status. Therefore, there actually were four wild aurochs subspecies. The reason why the Asiatic subspecies is not part of the “basic aurochs knowledge” is probably that the Chinese literature is less recognized in the western scientific community, and that the bone material (which even includes nicely preserved complete specimen) is less noticed compared to the plentiful European material, except for the Baikal skull. It would be interesting to know if there was a continuum between primigenius and suxianensis, as the distribution area apparently was continuous at least some of the time of their existence. The Kiev specimen, which is the Easternmost specimen of the European subspecies that I know of, does have some similarities in horn shape. 

The aurochs apparently was a species with a wide geographical range and regional variations. The European subspecies which is the “standard” when we think of an aurochs, the African subspecies that apparently had a colour saddle, the Indian aurochs with its slender cranium and the long wide-ranging horns, and the East Asian aurochs with the slightly different horns and the convex snout. When we look at other bovines with a wide geographical range such as the Banteng or the Cape buffalo, there might have been more local colour variants that we do not know of. 

Literature 

[1] Xie: A skull of Bos primigenius suxianensis from Anhui. 1988.  

[2] Cai et al.: Ancient DNA reveals evidence of abundant aurochs (Bos primigenius) in Neolithic Northeast China. 2018. 

Quagga life restoration

Today I did another Quagga life restoration, based on the Amsterdam skin. 

I drew it in the same posture as this zebra of the Quagga Project so that both can be easily compared. 

The stripe pattern on the Quagga is different from those of the zebras of the project. The stripes are broader, with a much smaller space in between, especially on the head. Also, the brownish background colour of the trunk is not quite achieved yet. Furthermore, I suspect that there are more differences between Quaggas and Burchell's zebras. For example, the mane seems to be shorter in each of the skins and the photos of the London mare. Also, it might be that the ears are smaller. Although being nested within the Burchell's zebra, the quagga has unique haplotypes identifying the subspecies. 
The zebras of the Quagga project, on the other hand, are simply Burchell's zebras with a reduced stripe pattern, not more than that. This is why I wrote Please don't call it Quagga. 

Aurochs horn variation

I described the horns of the aurochs in a 2013 post already. The basic curvature of the horns was always the same in the aurochs, but there was considerable variation on the actual length, thickness, shape and orientation of the horns within a certain range. 

I tried to capture this variation on two drawings in 2015 where I reconstructed the horn sheaths onto 22 skulls in order to see what the horns might have looked like in life. I am going to repost them down below. We cannot be absolutely sure on the life appearance of the sheaths as there was no general rule of thumb of how much the sheath adds to length and thickness of the horn cure. There was quite some variation (van Vuure, 2005). So the reconstructions down below are an approximation. 

For the identity of the skulls, go to the 2015 post. 

Recently I did some more sketches, also including skulls that I already reconstructed in 2015: 

From left to right top down: Berlin skull, a skull of a location unknown to me, the Cambridge cow, Gramsberger Museum skull, Himmelev specimen, Horsholm specimen, a cow skull from Italy, the Stuttgart skull and the Vig bull. 

Having reconstructed about 30 specimen, I think this is a fairly representative sample for the variation of the horns of the European subspecies Bos primigenius primigenius. 

Orientation relative to the skull 

The literature states that the orientation of the horns relative to the skull varied from 50 to 70° (van Vuure, 2005). However, having had a look at so many skulls I find that the range is actually larger. The oldest aurochs skull which was discovered in 2014 had an orientation of 40°. The Vig specimen has an orientation of 90°, and the Horsholm specimen probably an even larger angle. 

Geographic variation

I see some sort of geographic correlation in the variation of the horn types. For example, the more Southern the skulls, the sharper is the angle between the horns and the snout. The more Northern and Eastern, the higher is the orientation of the horns. You see that very clearly in the Kiev specimen and the Eastern Asian aurochs Bos primigenius suxianensis (yes, apparently Eastern Asian aurochs were a distinct subspecies, more on that in an upcoming post). Small-horned aurochs seemingly only appeared in Northern Europe, all other locations (Southern Europe, Africa, Asia) had pretty large-horned aurochs. 

Aurochs bull and cow portrait

Recently I did a new portrait of a European aurochs bull and cow. I was inspired by the photo of Murnau-Werdenfelsers. 
The horns of the bull are based on the Berlin specimen, those of the cow are based on the cow at Gramsberger Museum, Netherlands.