White-tailed Deer Subspecies

General
,
1

Hello all,

I was wondering if anyone would be up for the task of helping me with my new project (title). Generally speaking White-tailed Deer subspecies are easy to account for from their generally easy to read range maps. Obviously not all areas are the same and some cross over can occur, in these instances just like any other species they should be left at the species level.

But in places like Michigan where the subspecies are quite locked away from others we can definitely get them to the subspecies level. I know that subspecies aren’t something that everyone likes but taxonomically speaking they are just a fact of life.

So long story short, if you’re willing to help me make these identifications please reach out to me or join my new project. Thank you!

2

Sounds like fun. I try to do this with taxa I am more familiar with (birds and reptiles). I can pitch in some subspecies identifications.

3

[Disclaimer: I don’t have any specialist knowledge about deer.]

I believe this is the project you’re referring to: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/white-tailed-deer-subspecies

iNat users definitely have a range of views on the value of infrataxa identifications and on how people should go about making those determinations. There are quite a few people who are adamantly opposed to using location as a factor in making that type of ID, based on the logic that all we’re really saying is “This is a white-tailed deer seen in Michigan”. Instead, they say that it’s only acceptable to make any identification based on what you can see in the images (or hear in an audio file). If you can see a field mark that distinguishes the organism as being a particular subspecies, then that’s the only time they would support adding that identification.

My view is a bit more relaxed. Mostly, I still want to know “why” an organism is one subspecies versus another. But I see a small amount of value in using range/distribution alone to provide subspecies IDs. My thinking goes like this:

  1. First add subspecies identifications for observations based on visible traits.
  2. “Correct” any observations with implausible subspecies IDs (out of known range) where the images don’t provide strong evidence of a range extension.
  3. If subspecies have ranges that overlap in part and it seems there is value to having a fairly accurate range map for each, then there could be a small amount of value to adding “location-only” subspecies IDs for those areas where only one subspecies is known to occur.

The value of step 3 is not huge, but it does potentially mean that iNat has more representative distribution maps for each of the infrataxa. It seems like that might be worthwhile for organisms that have a threatened or little-studied subspecies. For the areas of overlapping range, it would still be necessary to limit IDs to visible traits.

Bringing this back to white-tailed deer, do you have some thoughts on what info would be gained if iNat users added IDs of Odocoileus virginianus borealis to every white-tailed deer observation in Michigan?

5

Hi Cody, welcome back to the forum. I have however unlisted this topic from pubic view as one of the forum guidelines is that it’s not a place for promoting projects. Best of luck with yours!