The cetaceans are among the group of animals producing the most new species to Western zoology. A literal explosion of findings are providing routine news about new whales, killer whales, dolphins, and beaked whales. Recent discussions have occurred related to a new killer whale.
For a little background on the breaking news, here are details on the types of Orcas or Killer Whales:
The three to five types of killer whales may be distinct enough to be considered different races, subspecies, or possibly even species. The IUCN reported in 2008, “The taxonomy of this genus is clearly in need of review, and it is likely that O. orca will be split into a number of different species or at least subspecies over the next few years.” In the 1970s and 1980s, research off the west coast of Canada and the United States identified the following three types:
- Resident: These are the most commonly sighted of the three populations in the coastal waters of the northeast Pacific. Residents’ diets consist primarily of fish and sometimes squid, and they live in complex and cohesive family groups called pods. Female residents characteristically have rounded dorsal fin tips that terminate in a sharp corner. They visit the same areas consistently. British Columbia and Washington resident populations are amongst the most intensively studied marine mammals. Researchers have identified and named over 300 killer whales over the past 30 years.
- Transient: The diets of these whales consist almost exclusively of marine mammals. Transients generally travel in small groups, usually of two to six animals, and have less persistent family bonds than residents. Transients vocalize in less variable and less complex dialects. Female transients are characterized by more triangular and pointed dorsal fins than those of residents. The gray or white area around the dorsal fin, known as the “saddle patch”, often contains some black colouring in residents. However, the saddle patches of transients are solid and uniformly gray. Transients roam widely along the coast; some individuals have been sighted in both southern Alaska and California. Transients are also referred to as Bigg’s killer whale in honor of Michael Bigg. The term has become increasingly common and may eventually replace the transient label.
- Offshore: A third population of killer whales in the northeast Pacific was discovered in 1988, when a humpback whale researcher observed them in open water. As their name suggests, they travel far from shore and feed primarily on schooling fish. However, because they have large, scarred and nicked dorsal fins resembling those of mammal-hunting transients, it may be that they also eat mammals and sharks. They have mostly been encountered off the west coast of Vancouver Island and near the Queen Charlotte Islands. Offshores typically congregate in groups of 20–75, with occasional sightings of larger groups of up to 200. Currently, little is known about their habits, but they are genetically distinct from residents and transients. Offshores appear to be smaller than the others, and females are characterized by dorsal fin tips that are continuously rounded.
Transients and residents live in the same areas, but avoid each other. The name “transient” originated from the belief that these killer whales were outcasts from larger resident pods. Researchers later discovered transients are not born into resident pods or vice versa. The evolutionary split between the two groups is believed to have begun two million years ago. Genetic data indicate the types have not interbred for up to 10,000 years.
Other populations have not been as well studied, although specialized fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales have been distinguished elsewhere. Separate populations of fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales have been identified around the United Kingdom. Fish-eating killer whales in Alaska and Norway have resident-like social structures, while mammal-eating killer whales in Argentina and the Crozet Islands behave more like transients.
Three types have been documented in the Antarctic. Two dwarf species, named Orcinus nanus and Orcinus glacialis, were described during the 1980s by Soviet researchers, but most cetacean researchers are skeptical about their status, and linking these directly to the types described below is difficult.
- Type A looks like a “typical” killer whale, a large, black and white form with a medium-sized white eye patch, living in open water and feeding mostly on minke whales.
- Type B is smaller than type A. It has a large white eye patch. Most of the dark parts of its body are medium gray instead of black, although it has a dark gray patch called a “dorsal cape” stretching back from its forehead to just behind its dorsal fin. The white areas are stained slightly yellow. It feeds mostly on seals.
- Type C is the smallest type and lives in larger groups than the others. Its eye patch is distinctively slanted forwards, rather than parallel to the body axis. Like type B, it is primarily white and medium gray, with a dark gray dorsal cape and yellow-tinged patches. Its only observed prey is the Antarctic cod.
- Type D was identified based on photographs of a 1955 mass stranding in New Zealand and six at-sea sightings since 2004. It is immediately recognizable by its extremely small white eye patch, shorter than usual dorsal fin, and bulbous head (similar to a pilot whale). Its geographic range appears to be circumglobal in subantarctic waters between latitudes 40°S and 60°S. And although nothing is known about the type D diet, it is suspected to include fish because groups have been photographed around longline vessels where they reportedly prey on Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides).
- Types B and C live close to the ice pack, and diatoms in these waters may be responsible for the yellowish coloring of both types. Mitochondrial DNA sequences support the theory that these are recently diverged separate species. More recently, complete mitochondrial sequencing indicates the two Antarctic groups that eat seals and fish should be recognized as distinct species, as should the North Pacific transients, leaving the others as subspecies pending additional data.
Research is ongoing into the genetic relationships among killer whale types, and whether these types represent deep evolutionary trends. For example, mammal-eating killer whales were long thought likely to be closely related to other mammal-eating killer whales from different regions, but genetic testing refuted this hypothesis. Source.
NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center
As for the new species news:
The Type-D killer whale, a type of orca generally thought to have its distinct look because of a rare genetic mutation, may actually be an entirely separate species of the cetacean, according to a recent study published in the journal Polar Biology.
Type-D orcas, known to live in the Southern Ocean, are set apart from their Type-A, B and C peers by their notably small white eye patch, bulbous head and shorter-than-normal dorsal fin. Other types of orca have much larger white eye patches and streamlined bodies. The first known observation of a Type-D orca was in 1955 when a small pod of the creatures washed up on the shores of New Zealand. Since then, there have only been a handful of at-sea sightings of a Type-D orca.
Read rest of article in Nature World News.
In a word: fascinating!
I am skeptical that the variations between A, B, C and now D truly constitute different species. One can look a Bull Mastiff and a Poodle and see evidence of different species, but they’re not. Here, the differences though extant are not nearly as significant.
@ mandors: Species are generally defined as “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
Lions and Tigers, along with all other members of the “Big Cats,” while comprising separate species, CAN successfully be cross-bred in captivity. The same is true for Black, Brown(Grizzly) & Polar bears. In fact, instances of naturally occurring Polar/Grizzly crosses have recently been documented. The resulting hybrids are known as Grolars or Pizzlys.
Dogs, no matter how dissimilar, are ALL members of the same species: Canis familiaris. As a result, one CANNOT “look a(t) Bull Mastiff and a Poodle and see evidence of different species” – at least not scientifically.
Which brings us to the disparate groups of Orcas. That they apparently do not interbreed on a regular basis, means they fit the common definition of separate species. The similarities in appearance – or lack of differences, if you prefer – do not preclude them from being recognized separately in scientific nomenclature.
However, to be fair to your argument, biologists still dispute the details of an all-encompassing definition of species. Throw the matter of subspecies – that is, groups capable of successfully interbreeding, but that usually don’t due to geographic isolation – and the “Orca problem” will likely remain disputed for some time to come.
Yeti, I am aware of the definition of species. I am contesting it’s use here. There are only physical differences and geographic differences cited in the article. Personally, I do not find these determinative. That different groups of Orca do not breed, is very different from them being unable to breed. Tigers and Lions CANNOT be successfully crossbred, because the resulting offspring are sterile. I am aware that different bear species interbreed. I do not know if their offspring are sterile. This leads to the real determination, genetics.
I am sure that there are blood samples from all four groups of Orcas. I wonder what tests have been done comparing groups A, B, C and D. The article is ambiguous on this point, and I don’t blame Loren. The other articles I’ve read merely make the same observations of physical traits. These like the size between a Mastiff and poodle, as I point out, do NOT indicate different species.
The highly intelligent nature of the Orcas is an additional factor that could complicate the analysis. Orcas like humans can be very territorial and very discriminating. Pods of the same “species” have been know to shun each other, or worse. So this could likely be a cause of the lack of interbreeding. I wonder whether the differences in the groups of Orca are closer to race in humans than distinctive species. No one would claim that Innuit peoples are a different species of humans simple because they lived separated from other people and did not interbreed with them.
The question as I see it is again whether there are genetic variations clearly distinguishing the four species of Orcas, other than genomes that determine physical traits, and whether the four type are able to interbreed successfully. The recent disclosure articles about type D do not in my opinion adequately address these issues.
@ mandors: Thanks for expounding on the topic. I think I have a better handle on what you were trying to say.
Clearly, even under the best of circumstances, biologists have had a difficult time nailing-down what, exactly, denotes a species. Although he may have been the first to use the terms Lumpers and Splitters, the concepts predate even Darwin himself!
For years, all scientists had to go on were physical and territorial differences. Even now, genetic testing may or may not entirely settle the matter. Especially in this case, wherein the various types of Orcas – although physically very similar and assumed to be capable of producing fertile offspring – may “choose” not to breed with other types.
It plays right into your comment regarding the human “races” – which, BTW, I especially liked. In fact, I think you may have hit the nail on the head! While the human species appears content to divide itself into different races, our egocentric nature seems loathe to allow us to bestow similar labels upon other creatures…
Any way you look at it, the matter is – and will undoubtedly remain, controversial.
P.S. I also wanted to clarify a couple points:
As you correctly noted, MALE “Ligers” (male lion/female tiger) and “Tigons” (male tiger/female lion) cubs are ALWAYS sterile. However, that is NOT the case for the FEMALE cubs; successful matings and resulting viable litters have been documented.
Also, I looked into it and confirmed that Polar/Grizzly Bear crosses produce viable offspring; i.e., capable, themselves, of successfully reproducing.