American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

Chapter 3 Taxonomy and Nomenclature
The purpose of naming organisms is to facilitate recognition
and communication and to identify patterns and apply practical
structure to the natural world. Taxonomy can support the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity by
contributing to identification, assessment, and monitoring
programmes (Environment Australia 1998). Taxonomy is also
vital for the creation and interpretation of laws, treaties, and
conservation programmes because it creates legal identities
for organisms (Geist 1991). While it is important to strive for
accuracy in taxonomic classification, semantic issues and
uncertainty can create substantial management challenges
by distracting conservation decision makers from the issues
threatening a taxon or biological unit worthy of conservation.
Despite the extensive history, and the economic and symbolic
importance of bison to North American societies, there
remains significant confusion and disagreement about bison
taxonomy. The issues range from an historical discrepancy
over the common name, to ongoing scientific debate over the
systematics of the genus, species, and subspecies designations.
3.1 An Historical Misnomer:
Bison vs. Buffalo
The bison is not a buffalo. True ‘buffalo’ are native only to
Africa (cape buffalo, Syncerus caffer) and Asia (four species
of water buffalo, Bubalus spp.). The use of the term buffalo
for American bison derived perhaps from other languages
used by explorers to describe the unfamiliar beast, e.g.,
bisonte, buffes, buffelo, buffles, and buffilo (Danz 1997; Dary
1989). These terms are similar to bufle and buffe, which were
commonly used to refer to any animal that provided good hide
for buff leather (Danz 1997). Despite the misnomer, the term
‘buffalo’ has been used interchangeably with “bison” since
early explorers first discovered the North American species
(Reynolds et al. 1982). The term has become entrenched as a
colloquialism in North American culture and language. Although
scientific convention dictates use of ‘bison’, the term ‘buffalo’
persists as an accepted, non-scientific convention for habitual
and nostalgic reasons.
3.2 Genus: Bos vs. Bison
When Linnaeus first classified the bison in 1758 for his 10th
Edition of the Systema Naturae, he assigned the animal to
Bos, the same genus as domestic cattle (Wilson and Reeder
2005). During the 19th Century, taxonomists determined that
Lead Authors: Delaney P. Boyd, Gregory A. Wilson, and C. Cormack Gates
there was adequate anatomical distinctiveness to warrant
assigning the bison to its own genus (Shaw and Meagher
2000). Therefore, in 1827, C. Hamilton Smith assigned the sub-
generic name Bison to the American bison and the European
bison (Skinner and Kaisen 1947). In 1849, Knight elevated
the subgenus Bison to the level of genus (Skinner and Kaisen
1947). Since then, taxonomists have debated the validity of
the genus, some arguing that bison are not sufficiently distinct
from cattle, guar, yak, and oxen to warrant a distinct genus
(Gardner 2002, personal communication). During the last two
decades, as molecular genetic and evolutionary evidence
has emerged, scientists have used Bos with increasing
frequency. Discrepancies in the genus are reflected in major
cataloguing centres and books. For example, the Canadian
Museum of Nature (Balkwill 2002, personal communication)
and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in its
publication Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder
2005) use Bison, while the Royal Ontario Museum (Eger 2002,
personal communication) and the Museum of Texas Tech
University, in its Revised Checklist of North American Mammals
North of Mexico (Jones, Jr. et al. 1992; Jones et al. 1997; Baker
et al. 2003), have reverted to Bos.
The debate over the appropriate genus arises from the
conflict between the traditional practice of assigning names
based on similar features distinguishable by morphology (the
phenetic approach) versus using evolutionary relationships (the
phylogenetic approach) (Freeman and Herron 2001; Winston
1999). Systematists develop evolutionary trees by analysing
shared derived characteristics (Freeman and Herron 2001;
Winston 1999). In this scheme, only monophyletic groups, or
clades, which represent all descendants of a common ancestor,
are named. A phenetic scheme might assign names to partial
clades, or paraphyletic groups, which exclude one or more
descendants (Freeman and Herron 2001). Some taxonomists
and systematists suggest that the traditional naming system
be replaced with a phylogenetic scheme (Freeman and Herron
2001). While not all biologists agree this is prudent, given that
a strictly phylogenetic scheme could ignore functionally and
ecologically important differences among species (Freeman
and Herron 2001), the phylogenetic approach provides some
useful insights about evolutionary relationships within the family
Bovidae.
Bison reside in the family Bovidae, subfamily Bovinae, tribe
Bovini, which currently contains four genera: Bubalus (Asian
water buffalo); Syncerus (African buffalo); Bos (domestic cattle
American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 13