Evolutionary aspects of the biology of chamois, Rupicapra spp. (Bovidae, Caprinae)

  • Sandro Lovari

Abstract

Kurtén (1968) wrote that the origin of Rupicapra ‘is a mystery’. Today we know a little more on its evolution, although we are still far from having a clear picture of how chamois evolved. This is somewhat unusual when compared with the relatively extensive information available on other tribes of the subfamily Caprinae. On the other hand, it seems to be a common pattern in the Rupicaprini tribe. Why are palaeontological remains of Rupicaprini so rare? Most likely, such rarity depends on the nature of the terrain on which Rupicapra and the other members of its tribe seem to have always been dependent: a rocky, rugged, steep ground in which bones are easily crushed and eroded, thus preventing fossilisation (Masini and Lovari, in prep.). This fact makes it difficult to reconstruct the evolutionary biology of the genus Rupicapra, as we are unable to observe the development of body features and structures which suddenly appear in their ‘modern’ form in the late Mindel-early Riss (Mid-Pleistocene).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berducou, C. (1985) Analyse de quelques relations entre une population’ de chamois des Pyrenées françaises et son environnement. In T. Balbo, P. Lan-franchi, P.G. Meneguz and L. Rossi. (eds) Atti Simposio Internazionale Cheratocongiuntivite Infettiva Camoscio, Centro Stampa Univeristà, Turin, pp. 125–46Google Scholar
  2. Blahout, M. (1976) Kamzicia zver Priroda, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  3. Caughley, G. (1963) Dispersal rates of several ungulates introduced into New Zealand. Nature 200, 280–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clutton-Brock, T.H. and S.D. Albon (1979) The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour 69, 145–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Couturier, M. (1938) Le chamois. Arthaud, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  6. Elsner-Schack, I. von (1985) Seasonal changes in the sizes of chamois groups in the Ammergauer Mountains, Bavaria. In S. Lovari (ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates, Croom Helm, London, pp. 148–53Google Scholar
  7. Ferrari, C. and S. Lovari. (1986) Premesse ambientali per una reintroduzione del camoscio appenninico (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata). In Atti Cony. Prog. Faunistico Appenninico. Fed. Ital. Caccia, Pescara, pp. 86–9Google Scholar
  8. Ferrari, C. and G. Rossi. (1985) Preliminary observations on the summer diet of the Abruzzo chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata Neum.). In S. Lovari (ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates. Croom Helm, London, pp. 8592Google Scholar
  9. Geist, V. (1978) Life strategies, human evolution, environmental design. Springer, New York and BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamr, J. (1984) Home range size and determinant factors in habitat use and activity of the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra L.) in Northern Tyrol, Austria. PhD thesis, Leopold Franzens Universität, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  11. Knaus, W. and W. Schröder (1975) Das Gamswild. Paul Parey, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  12. Kurtén B. (1968) Pleistocene mammals of Europe. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Lovari, S. (1984a) Il popolo delle rocce. Rizzoli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  14. Lovari, S. (1984b) Herding strategies of male Abruzzo chamois on the rut. Acta Zool. Fenn. 172, 91–2Google Scholar
  15. Lovari, S. (1985) Behavioural repertoire of the Abruzzo chamois, Rupicapra pyrenaica Neumann, 1899 (Artiodactyla: Bovidae). Säugetierkundl. Mitt. 32, 113–36Google Scholar
  16. Lovari, S. and R.F. Cosentino. (1986) Seasonal habitat selection and group size of the Abruzzo chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata). Boll. Zool. 53, 73–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovari, S. and G. Rosto. (1985) Feeding rate and social stress of female chamois foraging in a group. In S. Lovari (ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates. Croom Helm, London, pp. 102–5Google Scholar
  18. Lovari, S. and C. Scala. (1980) Revision of Rupicapra genus. 1. A statistical reevaluation of Couturier’s data on the morphometry of six chamois subspecies. Boll. Zool. 47, 113–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masini, F. (1985) Würmian and Holocene chamois of Italy. In S. Lovari (ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates, Croom Helm, London, pp. 3144Google Scholar
  20. Nascetti G., S. Lovari, P. Lanfranchi, C. Berducou, S. Mattiucci, L. Rossi and L. Bullini. (1985) Revision of Rupicapra genus. 3. Electrophoretic studies demonstrating species distinction of chamois populations of the Alps from those of the Apennines and Pyrenées. In S. Lovari (ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates. Croom Helm, London, pp. 56–62Google Scholar
  21. Nei, M. (1972) Genetic distance between populations. Am. Natur. 106, 283–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schaller, G.B. (1977) Mountain monarchs. Wild sheep and goats of the Himalaya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  23. Shank, C.C. (1985) Inter-and intra-sexual segregation of chamois (Rupicapra rupi- capra) by altitude and habitat during summer. Z. Saugetierkunde 50, 117–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hiroaki Soma 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandro Lovari
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations