status of the least understood wild sheep, the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
October 7, 2009
Status of the least understood wild sheep, the endangered northern Chinese argali (Ovis ammon jubata)
Final Report
Richard B. Harrisa, Ganchimeg Wingardb, and Bi Junhuaic
a Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Science, University of Montana,
Missoula b Argali Research Center, Ulaanbaatar
c Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot
PSF 2008/09
2
Executive Summary
Few species have inspired as many as the majestic giant sheep of central Asia, the
argali (Ovis ammon). The species is very difficult to manage and conserve, with most
populations being small, vulnerable, or endangered. Although intra-specific taxonomy
remains disputed, most international bodies currently recognize 8 sub-species: O. a.
ammon, hodgsoni, polii, karelini, darwini, nigrimontana, severtzovi, and jubata. Of
these, the conservation situations of the last 3 are considered to be the most critical. The
last of these, O. a. jubata, remains the least studied, and its status has never been
thoroughly investigated. Although given the common names “Northern Chinese argali”
and “Shanxi argali”, O. a. jubata has most commonly been described as being distributed
primarily within the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia. Though a combination of
literature review, examination of official documents, interviews with officials and local
residents, and limited direct field work, we investigated the status of argali within Inner
Mongolia generally, and more specifically, the status of O. a. jubata.
As of 2009, argali within Inner Mongolia appear to be restricted to extremely
small populations in 3 areas. The reduction and fragmentation of existing populations
reported by Wang and Schaller (1996) and Bu et al (1998) during the 1990s appears to
have continued. Argali have been lost from at least two areas considered to contain
remnant populations during the 1990s by Wang and Schaller (1996): the Helan Shan and
the Lang Shan mountain ranges. Disturbance and habitat degradation in a 3rd area, the
Mazong Shan range, has likely caused the disappearance of argali there as well. Small
numbers of argali persist in the Yabrai (Yubulai) Shan range, the Hada Shan area and the
Erenuo’ersumu region of Sunitezuo Banner. The future of argali within Inner Mongolia
appears tenuous, most likely dependent on the ability of dispersing individuals from
Mongolia to supplement existing groups or colonize new areas. Very little habitat capable
of sustaining argali populations remains within Inner Mongolia.
There remains considerable disagreement among authors regarding the diagnosis,
original geographic distribution, and even the validity of the subspecies O. a. jubata. For
purposes of this report, we accept the taxonomy and descriptions of Geist (1991). More
3
important than morphological differences, however, is the fact that these animals were
originally described from mountain ranges that differ substantially in topography and
vegetation types from the isolated Gobi mountain ranges to their north and northwest, and
from the higher elevation ranges to their west. Thus we hypothesize that these animals
may have had unique adaptations to slightly warmer, more mesic conditions than typify
existing argali.
Based on the information available to us, we believe that O. a. jubata as a
subspecies with unique adaptations has become extirpated. We know of no credible
reports of argali from south of the Yellow River within recent historical times; argali
have long since been extirpated from the provinces of Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Hebei. We
lack evidence that argali remaining within Inner Mongolia differ in any way from those
inhabiting the Gobi ranges of Mongolia (which are generally considered O. a. darwini).
Although proving absence is very difficult and further genetic work shedding light on
differentiation among putative subspecies is desirable, we conclude that O. a. jubata no
longer exists.
4
Introduction Few species have inspired as many as the majestic giant sheep of central Asia, the
argali (Ovis ammon). This species invariably tops the list among species considered by
the nascent wildlife management authorities in provincial and local centers of such
countries as Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and China. They are of intense interest
to governments (and some businessmen) because of their capacity to generate income
through high-priced trophy hunting (and possibly non-consumptive viewing as well). In
addition, they are of high interest to local pastoralists as sources of meat, and as
competitors with domestic livestock (although we suspect the principal dynamic runs the
other way).Yet the status of few argali subspecies or populations is understood with any
certainty.
Among the least known (and very likely most endangered) argali are those living
in Inner Mongolia, China. These are generally attributed to the subspecies O. a. jubata,
(Geist 1991, Shackleton 1997, older Red Listing of CR C2a), although so little is known
about these animals that whether they merit subspecific designation is itself unclear.
What is clear, however, is that there have historically been argali in isolated hills in Inner
Mongolia , but that they are now reduced to isolated remnants. Information on these
remnants is exceedingly scarce and of unknown reliability. Although some recent
accounts (e.g., Cai 1985) mention argali as occurring south and/or east of Inner Mongolia
(in Shaanxi, Shanxi, or Hebei), we know of no reliable reports of argali persisting in these
provinces.
The type locality for O. a. jubata is said to be “north of Peiping [Beijing]” (Geist
1991:719). The animals used by Geist (1991) in describing the subspecies originated
from “Kwei Hua Ch’eng, Shansi” (Geist 1991). However, this name is actually an
obsolete reference to Hohhot (‘Huhehaote’ in modern pinyin), capital of present day
Inner Mongolia. The geographic coordinates (111º 30’ E, 41º N), where specimens were
obtained by Roy Chapman Andrews in 1921, place this in the Daqing Shan, just north of
Hohhot. These hills, as well as those further south and east in Shanxi and Hebei, are
characterized by gentler topography and more mesic vegetation than the isolated ranges
of the Gobi Desert. This raises the possibility that O. a. jubata may, if still extant,
5
represent not merely a distinct morph (Geist 1991) but a particular adaptation within O.
ammon.
Available information on the recent status of argali in Inner Mongolia is limited to
the reports of Wang and Schaller (1996) and Bu et al (1998). The first authors observed
no argali themselves, but reported that remnant populations probably existed (at the time)
in the Mazong Shan, Yabrai (Yabulai) Shan, Helan Shan, Zhuozi Shan, and Lang Shan
ranges. They considered the species endangered in Inner Mongolia, guessing that less
than 500 existed. Bu et al. (1998) reported on a combination of direct observations and
interviews made during the 1990s, suggesting the continued presence of small, isolated
groups of argali in various ranges throughout northern Inner Mongolia. More recently,
Gong Minghao (Department of Wildlife Management, State Forestry Administration,
Beijing) conducted a survey in the Yabulai Shan area where government officials hope a
future trophy-hunting program can be established. He did not observe argali directly, but
interviews with local staff and photographic evidence indicated the presence of a small
argali population there (Gong 2009).
These reports have shed no light on whether some or all of these animals are
appropriately considered Northern Chinese (or “Shansi”) argali (O. a. jubata). Maps
produced by scientists with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (reproduced in Shackleton
1997: 166) suggest that argali in extreme northern Inner Mongolia (adjacent to the
Mongolian border) are considered O. a. darwini, but those in central Inner Mongolia are
O. a. jubata. (This map was mislabeled in Shackleton 1997, and later corrected by Ali
2007). Gong (2009) considered argali of western Inner Mongolia’s desert mountain range
Yabrai (Yabulai) Shan to be O. a. jubata, but did not explain his reasoning. A website of
China International Forest Travel (which has facilitated some trophy hunting) states that
“Shanxi Argali (Ovis ammon jubata)…is found in an arc across northern China from
Hebei and Shanxi west through Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia to Gansu.” However, Yu
(2001), in a comprehensive report on argali in China, did not recognize O. a. jubata as a
valid subspecies.
Our objectives were to i) update the status of argali in Inner Mongolia, and ii)
shed light on whether any remnant populations should truly be considered O. a. jubata
6
(or alternatively, whether the taxon should be considered extinct). Additionally, we make
some observations on the sub-specific taxonomy proposed by Geist (1991) and generally
accepted by biologists based in the West.
Methods Literature review and translation. We reviewed all available literature,
including unpublished reports and databases, in both Chinese and Mongolian. We also
examined unpublished data on argali status held by staff at the Mongolian Institute of
Biology in Ulaan Baatar.
Review of museum specimens. Through interviews and our literature search,
we attempted to determine where specimens of argali from the region might be housed,
and to examine these when possible. We were able to examine and photograph 12 skins,
and take bone chip samples from 10 specimens taken by the Roy Chapman Andrews
expeditions of 1919-21 in what is now Mongolian and Inner Mongolia, housed at the
mammalogy collection at the American Museum of Natural History. We also examined
mounts, skins specimens, and skulls at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing; the Beijing Museum of Natural History; the Mongolian Museum of
Natural History (Ulaan Baatar); and the Mongolian Hunting Society Museum (Ulaan
Baatar). In addition, we made inquiries into the existence of specimens at the Tianjin
Museum of Natural History in Tianjin, China, and the specimen collection at the
Kunming Institute of Zoology in Kunming, China, which have among the largest
collections of Chinese mammals.
Interviews with officials and academics. We began our site-based
investigations by interviewing officials with the Inner Mongolia Forestry Bureau in
Hohhot. We also arranged for an indirect interview with Mr. Zhu Jun of the Shanxi
Forestry Bureau in Taiyuan. Generally, these interviews provided us little additional
information than that contained in the 2 primary published sources: Wang and Schaller
(1996) and Bu et al. (1998).
Interviews with local pastoralists. In the 2 areas selected for field surveys,
we first interviewed local nature reserve and/or forestry staff at the Prefecture (meng) or
banner (qi) level. These interviews generally led us to specific areas, where we
7
interviewed local residents (generally pastoralists) who were said by forestry staff to be
credible. When asking about the presence of argali, we also asked about other species in
an attempt to further discern the level of knowledge of these respondents. In some cases,
we were able to display photos of various species on a laptop computer, and informally
assess the knowledge level of respondents by their correct identification of species. In the
Erenuo’ersumu, Abaga, and Hada Shan areas all interviews were conducted in Chinese.
In Bayan Nuo’er, interviews were conducted in both Chinese and Mongolian.
Field surveys. The Inner Mongolia Normal University (IMNU) survey of
suspected argali distribution within north-central Inner Mongolia took place during
November 15-25, 2008. Led by Dr. Bi Junhuai, participants included Liu Yan, lecturer at
IMNU; Liu Jie, graduate student at IMNU; Hugeji, forest police of Sunitezuo Banner
who acted as driver and guide; and Wutumuji, a pastoralist from Abage, who acted as a
guide. Five areas were visited (Fig. 6): Saihantawei township (~ 42º 44N, 112º 38’ E),
Erenuo’ersumu (~43º 24’N, 111º 25’E), Erenhot (~ 43º 44N, 112º E), Hada Shan in
Sunitezuo (44º 20’N, 111º 26E), and Abaga (44º 37’N, 114º 08’E).
The joint American-Inner Mongolian survey of suspected argali distribution
within the Lang Shan region of the Yin Shan in Bayan Nuo’er(巴彦淖尔)Prefecture
(meng; 盟) took place during March 16-21, 2009. Participants were Bi Junhuai and
Cao Aorigele of Inner Mongolian Normal University, Rich Harris of the University of
Montana, and Ganchimeg Wingard of the Mongolian Argali Research Center. With the
cooperation of personnel from the Wulate Nature Reserve Office, we interviewed local
officials and pastoralists in Hangjinhou (杭锦后)and Wulatehou (乌拉特后)Banners
(qi; 旗). We also viewed habitat conditions in the southwestern portion of the Lang Shan
range during March 19-20. As suggested by Wang and Schaller (1996:103), we focused
on the A’erqitu (阿尔其图) section of the Lang Shan, approximately 41° N, 106° 30’ E.
Results Literature review and preliminary interviews
8
According to Mr. Zhu Jun of the Shanxi Forestry Bureau (as related to us by Dr.
Gong Minghao, State Forestry Administration, March 20, 2009), there are no recent
records of argali in that province. An argali skull was found in the 1970s, but may have
been decades old at that point. We know of no other reliable records of argali south of the
Yellow River in recent times. Mr. Bu He of the Inner Mongolia Forestry Institute had no
new information on argali distribution or abundance in Inner Mongolia since he
published the results of his compilation of reports in 1998. No other recent, pertinent
documents were found.
November 2008 survey The Erenuo’ersumu area, which was reported (above) to have many as 100 argali
in the 1990s, is sufficiently close to the international border that no permanent residence
is allowed; temporary livestock grazing is, however, permitted. The area also contains
numerous springs that may be important to wildlife such as argali. During 2 days of
survey in this area, no argali or their sign were observed directly. However, a pastoralist
interviewed maintained that argali were frequently seen in the area, and another
pastoralist indicated that he’d observed 4 female or young argali earlier that day. Golden
eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) were commonly seen in this area.
The Abaga area is among those cited by Bu et al. (1998) as having documentation
of argali in the past, but they suggested was that this population had since been extirpated.
No argali were seen in this area, which appeared to contain very little suitable habitat for
argali. Pastoralists (including one 70-year old man) and local military personnel were
unanimous in reporting that they knew of no recent observations of argali in this area.
The Hada Shan area of Sunitezuo Banner is also situated at the international
border, and few pastoralists are permitted to live there. A well may serve to attract
wildlife to the area. A 25m tall observation tower here was also used to scan for argali.
Mr. Wutumuji led the team for two-and-a-half days of searching, finally encountering a
group of 7 female argali at approximately 44°20′N, 111°25′E (Fig. 3), which were
photographed after being pursued on motorcycle. The next day, these animals could not
be found, presumably having left the immediate area. Mr. Wutumuji had 2 domestic
sheep killed by wolves (Canis lupus) that night. The observation team also observed a red
fox (Vulpes vulpes) and numerous rabbits.
9
March 2009 survey The Lang Shan (“wolf mountains”, although sources disagree about whether the
reference is meaningful or not) are the southwestern portion of the larger (but less rugged)
Yin Shan mountains of western Inner Mongolia. The Lang Shan extend southwest to
northeast, approximately 50km northwest of the large floodplain where the Yellow River
completes its northward journey and bends eastward again, centered on approximately
41ºN, 106.5ºE. Most vegetation is currently desert scrub, with few grasses and even
fewer trees. Elevations of peaks are mostly in the 2000-2300 m range. Based on our
informal observations, mining activity appears to be ubiquitous surrounding the mountain
range.
Forestry and nature reserve officials based in the city of Linhe (administrative
center of Bayan Nuo’er) had no knowledge of argali in their area (including the Lang
Shan) , but were able to direct us to knowledgeable and long-term local residents. All that
we interviewed (Appendix I) agreed that argali no longer inhabited any part of the Lang
Shan. They differed slightly on when they believed the last argali had been observed,
some suggesting that it had been > 30 years, while at least one pastoralist reportedly had
seen argali tracks in snow in about 1996, and long-time resident Yan Bator reported
having seen 2 female argali in 1998. One pastoralist believed that even when present (i.e.,
prior to the 1990s) argali were only known to frequent the Lang Shan during winter.
All pastoralists we interviewed could accurately identify argali, blue sheep
(Pseudois nayaur), and ibex (Capra sibirica), and all were in agreement that blue sheep
remained numerous. While one can never be certain about absence, the evidence appears
very strong that argali no longer exist in the Lang Shan. Any given short-term survey
may well fail to find argali, but they are large, conspicuous animals and are unlikely to be
present when not a single observation is reported by pastoralists in the area for over 10
years.
Pastoralists we interviewed differed in their explanation of the loss of argali. One
pastoralist blamed poor vegetation conditions caused by a combination of climate change
and overgrazing, while another blamed poaching entirely, believing that if even a single
argali was known to be present that people at the time would have made all efforts to find
10
and kill it. Poaching was said to be primarily for meat consumption. We received only a
single report of recent ibex sightings; Mr. Yan Bator reportedly observed a group of 6 in
1998. In general, however, pastoralists believed that ibex were not regular residents of the
Lang Shan. Of note (and to reduce possible future misunderstandings), is that speakers of
Mongolian in Inner Mongolia use the word “yangir” to refer to blue sheep (P.nayaur),
whereas this word refers to ibex (C. sibirica) within Mongolia. The Mongolian word used
for ibex within Inner Mongolia is “ulaan yamaa” (red goat).
Forestry officials were unaware of the location of A’erqitu, said by Wang and
Schaller (1996) to be the best argali habitat in the Lang Shan. However, we located this
place name on a large-scale Prefecture map provided by Forestry, and later confirmed the
location with pastoralists who formerly used the area. (A’erqitu is itself a Chinese
approximation of the Mongolian word, pronounced approximately ‘Artsat’, meaning
“place with junipers”). It is not an inhabited area or village, but rather a name given to a
particular portion of the Lang Shan. We visited a high lookout overlooking A’erqitu on
March 25 (41º 03.932N, 106º 32.783E), and noted that its rolling topography and
relatively abundant vegetation – in contrast to rocky outcrops and desert vegetation
elsewhere – was consistent with this being an attractive area to argali.
Argali status by area Here, we summarize our understanding of the current status of argali in Inner
Mongolia. Figure 1 provides an overview of these locations.
Mazong Shan (马鬃山): It is fairly well established that a small number of argali
have persisted in this area, at the extreme northwest corner of Inner Mongolia, where it
abuts Gansu Province and Mongolia. Yu et al. (2008) reported that Chen et al. (1994; not
seen) documented 68-70 argali here in 1992, and that they themselves observed 25 argali
here 1998, Within Gansu, Subei County administers the area, and has operated occasional
trophy hunts in these desert mountains for a number of years, as recently as 1999. From
all accounts, this area is part of the Gobi desert, and it seems safe to assume that argali in
this area are O. a. darwini. However, a visit to the area in winter 2007 by one of us (BJH)
suggested that the area on the Inner Mongolian side has become sufficiently disturbed by
11
extensive mining activity that permanent argali presence was no longer likely. We do not
know their status in the Gansu portions of the Mazong Shan.
Yabrai (Yabulai Shan雅布赖山): This desert range extends in a southwest-
northeast direction approximately 250 km into the Badan Jilin desert of Alashan Banner,
northeast of Shandan in the Gansu corridor. The mountain range is located at
approximately 102° 66′ to 104° 00′ E longitude and 39° 34′ to 40° 24’ N latitude. Wang
and Schaller (1996) estimated the number of animals here as 20-30, and Bu et al. (1998)
reported that 10-15 were documented by the Chinese national wildlife “census” in 1996.
Although argali are capable of long-distance movements, it seems unlikely that argali in
the Yabrai Shan have routine contact with any other populations. In a recent, unpublished
report, Gong (2009) indicates that this area formerly contained a robust population of
argali, but that commercial hunting during the 1970s greatly reduced the population. In
the late 1990s, despite nominal protection as a nature reserve, heavy livestock grazing
combined with droughts to reduce palatable vegetation in the Yabrai Shan. Currently,
much of the range has attained an uncertain status as an international hunting area (i.e.,
lacking formal border delineation); there were 2 hunts for argali in 2002 (one of which
was unsuccessful), and an additional hunt in 2005, resulting in a total of 3 argali taken.
The number of argali currently inhabiting the Yabrai Shan is unclear, but almost
certainly quite low. Gong (2009) reports that a group of 23 were observed by a pastoralist
in spring 2001, and that groups of 4 and 12 individuals were observed by the Inner
Mongolia Forestry Survey and Planning team in 2002. Gong (2009) estimated that a total
of 150-200 argali currently inhabit the Yabrai Shan, but the basis of this estimate appears
to be quite weak. During a 2007 survey of the 4 drainages believed by local pastoralists
most likely to contain argali, Gong (2009) failed to observe any animals, although he did
encounter fresh tracks and received reports of recent observations of 1, 5, and 6 argali
from local protection staff (护林员). It appears that Gong (2009) differentiated
individuals based on track sizes, and made some assumptions (not clearly documented)
about movement among the 3 different drainages in which he encountered tracks, to
arrive at his numbers. The largest group size reported seems to have been 5, and few if
any lambs have been reported. It seems that the Yabrai Shan may contain a much smaller
12
population than the 150-200 Gong (2009) posits. However, Gong (2009) also reports that
pastoralists formerly using this area for livestock grazing have been resettled in nearby
towns, resulting in less grazing pressure on fragile desert vegetation. He also reports that
local staffs are enthusiastic about protecting argali – particularly as they believe that they
are protecting O. a. jubata which may be of interest to trophy hunters due to its
uniqueness (although see below) – and thus that the potential for a population increase in
the future exists.
Helan Shan(贺兰山). The Helan Shan is a unique, north-south range on the
Inner Mongolia-Ningxia border, much of which is now protected as a nature reserve.
Wang and Schaller (1996) listed this range has containing argali as did Yu (2008), and
Shackleton (1997:167) listed it as containing O. a. jubata. However, Dr. Liu Zhensheng
of East China Normal University has conducted research on blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur)
in the Helan Shan for many years, and communicated to us that he believe argali are no
longer present (personal communication, 2008). Additionally, recent surveys of blue
sheep status in the Helan Shan have failed to note the presence of argali (Liu and Wang
2006, Liu et al. 2007, Zhao et al. 2008). It seems reasonable to conclude that argali are
extirpated from the Helan Shan. Little is known of the nearby Zhouzi Shan, but as it is
smaller and less well-known for protection than the Helan Shan, it also seems unlikely to
contain any argali.
Lang Shan (狼山). Wang and Schaller (1996) wrote that argali had “almost
disappeared” from this range. Of interest is that blue sheep and ibex were also reported
as present by Wang and Schaller (1996), making this one of the very few ranges
containing all 3 species. However, our investigation of March 2009 (see above) leads us
to believe that argali became extirpated from the Lang Shan in the late 1990s. Ibex also
do not appear to be resident in the Lang Shan, although there are evidently populations of
ibex in smaller hills to the north. Blue sheep do occupy the Lang Shan, evidently in
healthy numbers.
The nearest argali to the Lang Shan would appear to be those occupying the
Nornoon Mountains that extend southeastwards from the Mongolian suum of Nomgon
toward the international border. Local pastoralists mentioned this area has having argali,
13
and the 2000 argali survey in Mongolia estimated there to be 110 argali in these
mountains, with an additional ~ 140 in Bayan-Ovoo sum to the northeast. Highlands
extending toward the Lang Shan could conceivably form a travel corridor for argali from
Mongolia, although mining activity in the northwest portion of the Lang Shan could
discourage argali from re-establishing themselves there.
Daqing Shan (大青山). Although included as containing O. a. jubata by
Shackleton (1997:167), there is consensus that this range, just north of the large city of
Hohhot, has not contained argali for at least 50 years. We made a cursory inspection visit
of part of the Daqing Shan north of Hohhot on March 29, 2009, and this provided us no
reason to doubt the conventional wisdom.
Siziwang (四子王)Banner. Bu et al. (1998) reported that about 10 argali were
believed to persist in the Wujia Shan and Hou Shan areas as of the mid-1990s. There are
evidently some passage-ways built in the Mongolia-Inner Mongolia border fence in this
area, which may facilitate occasional movement of argali. Given proximity to the
scattered populations of Gobi argali in adjacent Mongolia, these animals, if still present,
are likely to be O. a. darwini. We were not able to add to this information during our
surveys.
Erenhot (Erlianhaote, 二连浩特). Bu et al. (1998) reported that 60-70 argali were
believed use this area in 1994, and a 1997 report had this number at 80. Bi Junhuai
visited this area in 2004 and observed 13 argali. As above, these animals are likely O. a.
darwini.
Sunitezuo, Erenuo’ersumu (苏尼特左, 额仁淖尔苏木). Bu et al. (1998) reported
that in May 1997 a local pastoralist reported that about 100 argali had been seen in the
Dalei and Da’erhawula areas in November 1995, and that about 50 were seen in early
1996. Bu’s survey team documented 23 argali in this area in May, 1997 (photographs of
5 rams are included in Bu et al. 1998). Mr. Bu reported to us in August 2008 that he
believed these argali were well protected, but had no updated information on population
status. As above, these animals are likely to O. a. darwini.
14
As mentioned earlier (November 2008 survey), we observed and photographed 7
female argali at the Mongolia border in the Hada Shan area (Fig. 3). We cannot estimate
the number of animals that use this area, but it is likely to be a small number, given the
limited habitat for argali (it is mostly flat).
We were unable to find quantitative information on argali on the Mongolian side
of the border near this location. However, the 2000 national argali survey in Mongolia
reported, qualitatively, that argali were present in numerous small hills within both
Erdene and Orgon suums, the closest in Mongolia to this area. Additionally, the current
distribution and hunting status map of argali in Mongolia (Fig. 4) shows small areas of
known argali distribution northwest of this location (near the Mongolian town of
Saynshand), approximately 60-80 km distant. This same map (Fig. 4) also shows that >
10 of argali trophy rams were taken during 2005-07 from south of Erdene, perhaps only
20-40 km from where the photographs were taken.
The border fences (Fig. 5; there are actually 2, one on each side of the true border
line) consists of 12 strands of barbed wire supported by diagonal cross-wires, supported
by concrete pillars approximately 1.2 m high. In most places, these fences would likely
make passage by an argali very difficult (and almost impossible for a Mongolian gazelle
[Procapra gutturosa]). The isolating effects of these fences may be somewhat reduced by
the presence of rocky outcrops (Fig. 6), which appear to provide places from which argali
may leap over. In fact, the argali photographed in Fig. 3 had just crossed over the border
fence.
Discussion Argali are sensitive to human disturbance, and generally intolerant of human
presence. Most mountains and hills in Inner Mongolia that have historically contained
argali are relatively small and easily accessed. As the human population of Inner
Mongolia has increased dramatically over the past few decades (from approximately 6
million in 1949 to almost 24 million today), it is not surprising that argali have faced
difficult times. In contrast, argali in the Gobi sections of Mongolia, while facing
difficulties of their own, have fared much better.
15
With the exception of the small (and probably isolated) population in the Yabrai
Shan, remaining argali in Inner Mongolia are distributed very close to the international
border, and probably cannot be sustained without occasional interchange from animals in
Mongolia. In fact, argali seen in Inner Mongolia may well spend much or even most of
their time on the Mongolian side.
Historical records suggest that argali once were found close to Beijing (Zhang
1999). It seems possible that argali south and east of their current distribution in Inner
Mongolia had different adaptations to their environment than the desert-adapted animals
we find today. In any case, these animals have vanished. Remaining argali in Inner
Mongolia are very rare and, with the possible exception of those in the Yabrai Shan, do
not appear to have habitat conditions that would allow them to increase in the foreseeable
future.
Conservation options for argali in Inner Mongolia appear limited. The Yabrai
Shan is already a nature reserve/hunting area, pastoralists have been relocated, and active
efforts to prevent poaching are underway. Whether this small population can recover is
unknown. The small populations sometimes seen in the Erenuo’ersumu and Erenhot areas
are already partly protected by proximity to the international border: livestock grazing is
tightly restricted in this area. However, poaching could still occur, either with or without
the knowledge of border guards. Neither the creation of a viable nature reserve nor
international hunting area appears feasible in this sensitive border region. The
international border fence may obstruct natural movement patterns, and could become
especially troublesome if drought or heavy snows on one side of the border temporarily
force argali to search elsewhere for food or water. Lowering the top few wires of this
fence where argali may cross – but where border patrols could otherwise discover illegal
human crossing – should be strongly considered.
Acknowledgements We thank Eileen Westwig and Darrin Lunde at AMNH for their most gracious
assistance in allowing us access to the R.C. Andrews specimens and preparing them for
examination. Thanks also to Gong Minghao of the State Forestry Administration for
16
sharing information on argali in Yabrai Shan, Mr. Bu He of the Forestry Investigation
Station in Hohhot for his insight. For additional help in Hohhot and the field, we thank
Lian Xue, Liu Yan, Cao Aorigele, Director Yue of the Bayannuo’er Banner Forestry
Bureau Wulate Nature Reserve Office. We thank the curators of both the specimen
collection at the Institute of Zoology (Chinese Academy of Sciences) and the Beijing
Natural History Museum. In Ulaan Baatar, we thank N. Javzmaa of the Mongolian
Natural History Museum for her wonderful assistance in finding and photographing
argali specimens, as well as S. Amgalanbaatar for his steady assistance. Thanks to Dr.
Valerius Geist for his patience with our questions about taxonomy.
Literature Cited Ali, A. 2007. Revised map of distribution of Ovis ammon jubata. Caprinae News (March
2007): 14
Bu, H. X. Tian, and R.B. Chen. 1998. Argali of Inner Mongolia. Chinese Wildlife 19: 8-9.
(in Chinese).
Cai, G.Q. 1985. A general view of argali sheep (Ovis ammon) in China. Pp. 198-199 in
Hoefs, M. (editor), Wild Sheep: Special Report, Northern Wild Sheep and Goat
Council, Yukon Wildlife Branch, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada.
Chen, J., Luo, W.Y., and Yang, S.M. 1994. Geographical distribution of argali (Ovis
ammon hodgsoni) in Gansu. Chinese Wildlife (Yesheng Dongwu) 15 (3): 21
Geist, V. 1991. On the taxonomy of giant sheep (Ovis ammon). Canadian Journal of
Zoology 69: 706-723.
Gong, M. H. 2009. Report on resource survey of the Yabulai Hunting Area, Alashan You
Banner, Inner Mongolia. Unpublished mimeo report to Chinese State Forestry
Administration. (in Chinese).
Liu, C.G. and Y. Wang. 2006. Survey on quantity change of blue sheep population in
Helan Shan Nature Reserve, Ningxia. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University
(Natural Science Edition) 34:159-162. (in Chinese).
17
Liu Z.S., X.M. Wang, Z.G. Li, H. Zhai, and T.H. Hu. 2007. Distribution and abundance
of blue sheep in the Helan Mountains, China. Chinese Journal of Zoology
(Dongwuxue Zazhi) 43: 1-8. (in Chinese).
Shackleton, D.M., 1997, Wild Sheep and Goats and Their Relatives: Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
Shackleton, D.M. and S. Lovari. 1997. Classification adopted for the Caprinae Survey. pp.
9-14 in Shackleton, D.M., 1997, Wild Sheep and Goats and Their Relatives:
Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland and
Cambridge.
Tserenbataa, T., Ramey II, R. R. Ryder, O.A., Quinn, T.W., and Reading, R. P. 2004. A
population genetic comparison of argali sheep (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia using
the ND5 gene of mitochondrial DNA; implications for conservation. Molecular
Ecology 13: 1333-1339.
Wang, X.M. and G.B. Schaller. 1996. Status of large mammals in western Inner
Mongolia, China. Journal of East China Normal University (Natural Science) 12:
93-104.
Yu, Y.Q. 2001. Argali survey project: work report. Chinese State Forestry Administration.
(in Chinese).
Yu, Y.Q. Ji, M.Z., Liu, C.G., Li, K.C. and Guo.S.T. 2008. Geographical distribution and
vicissitude of argali, Ovis ammon, in China. Biodiversity Science 16: 197–204 (in
Chinese).
Zhang, R. Z. 1999. Zoogeography of China. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese).
Zhao, D.H., B.H. Zhang, J.S. Jia, Z.D. Wang, J. G. Xu, and Y. Su. 2008. Investigation
and analysis of present blue sheep population in the west slope of the Helan
Mountains. Inner Mongolia Petrochemical Journal (Nei Mengu Shiyouhuagong)
18: 40-41. (in Chinese).
18
Figure 1. Map of Inner Mongolia, showing approximate locations of places mentioned in
the text, as well as adjacent countries (Mongolia) and Chinese provinces.
19
Figure 2. Locations of field surveys in November 2008 and March 2009. Argali were
observed (arrow) near Hada Shan, in Sunitezuo Banner.
Lang Shan
20
Figure 3. Seven argali females (possibly including yearlings) photographed in mid-
November 2008 near the border with Mongolia, near Hada Shan, Sunitezuo Banner, at
approximately 44º 20’ N, 111º 25’ E.. Note border fence. Sign from argali was also
found on the Inner Mongolian side of the fence. Photo: Bi Junhuai.
21
Source: data— Ministry of Nature and Environment, graphics—WWF Mongolia Figure 4. Map of Mongolia, showing approximate areas of argali distribution (blue) and
number of argali shot by trophy hunters during 2005-07. Red arrow shows approximate
location of November 2008 photographs of argali on the Inner Mongolia side.
23
Figure 6. Border fence between Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, showing rocky areas
where argali (and perhaps humans) can more easily pass by leaping over. Photo:
Bi Junhuai.
24
Appendix I
Pastoralists interviewed in the Lang Shan area of Bayannuo’er Banner, March 2009.
Yan Bataar; Mongolian, age ~ mid 50s,
Li Yonghe, Mongolian, age ~ mid 40s
Jerentai, Mongolian, age ~ mid 60s
Erden Ibilig, Mongolian, age 66
Bai Ling, Mongolian, age late 40s
25
Appendix II
Notes on sub-specific taxonomy The IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group (Shackleton and Lovari 1997) recognizes 8
subspecies of argali, one of which is O. a. jubata, which is called the “Shansi [Shanxi] or
Northern Chinese argali”, and is said to live in Inner Mongolia and Ningxia. The
definitive description of this taxon is Geist (1991).
Examination of R. C. Andrews specimens Because one of us (Harris) had opportunity to be in New York in October 2008, it
was relatively easy to make arrangements to visit AMNH. On October 9, 2008, we
obtained photographs of 12 of the R. C. Andrews specimens (of which 8 were labeled as
originating in from “Kwei Hua Cheng”, and 4 from “Artsa Bogdo”, which is evidently
just northwest of Gobi Gurvhan Saichan National Park in Mongolia). We also obtained
bone fragments from skulls of 10 specimens, of which 9 were labeled as “Kwei Hua
Cheng”, for the purpose of future genetic work.
As noted by Geist (1991), lower metapodia on the Andrews specimens appear to
have a well-bordered, distinct anterior stripe (Fig. A1). It is less clear, however, that
Andrews specimens taken from Artsa Bogdo, which based on location would presumably
represent O. a. darwini, differ in this regard (Fig. A2). An additional distinguishing
characteristic noted by Geist (1991) was the ruff, with a dark ridge of elongated hair
distributed dorsally on the neck in O. a. jubata, in contrast with light ruff hair spread in
patches on the neck, withers, shoulder, and back in O. a. darwini. Photographic evidence
of these characteristics is not clear. However, the specimens labeled as “Kwei Hua” (and
thus presumably jubata) generally had light hair on the ruff (e.g., Fig. A3), and at least
one specimen from Artsa Bogdo (presumably darwini) appears to have darker hair along
its upper neck (Fig. A4), although this specimen is labeled as having been collected in on
August 23, perhaps too early in the year for full breeding pelage to emerge.
Other museum specimens
26
No argali specimens from the area of interest are held by the Kunming Institute of
Zoology or Tianjin Natural History Museum collections. Specimens at the Mongolian
Natural History Museum and the Mongolian Hunter’s Museum were either clearly
labeled as coming from the Altai Mountain region, lacked clear labeling, or were too
poorly preserved to be diagnostic. However, 2 skins held at the collection of the Institute
of Zoology in Beijing were tagged as coming from Inner Mongolia. One, dating from
October 9, 1960, came from the Wula Shan area, near Lake Wuliangsuhai (Fig. A5). The
other, dating from August 24, 1972, came from approximately 100km NNE of the first
one, in the low hills extending eastward from the Yin Shan, northwest of the current
county town of Wulatezhong (Fig. A6). Both were identified by Dr. Valerius Geist( from
photographs we provided) as probably O. a. jubata on the basis of having distinctly
bordered rump patches, stripes down the short tails and dark body color without blotches
of light fur. Both of these specimens came from mountains just east of our Lang Shan
survey. No argali remain in these areas.
Photographs of adult males in nuptial coat Gong Minghao (State Forestry Administration) supplied us with a photograph that
included 3 adult male argali taken December 1, 2005 in Yabrai Shan, Inner Mongolia.
Gong (2009) considers argali in this mountain range to be O. a. jubata. However, they
were identified as O. a. darwini by Dr. Geist, based on having an extended rump patch
and white shoulder patches extending onto the neck.
We obtained photographs of mature argali rams at the Gun Galuut Aimag level
Nature Reserve, approximately 100 km due east of Ulaan Baatar on April 2, 2009. These
were also identified by Dr. Geist as O. a. darwini, based on the presence of a secondary
rump patch which surrounds the tail, and having patches of white hair on the shoulder
and neck.
Discussion Our conclusion, based on evidence available to us, is that O. a. jubata no longer
exists. However, we noted that distinguishing O. a. jubata from O. a. darwini, either
from photographs of live animals or from skins, based on the criteria given by Geist
27
(1991, and in correspondence) would be very difficult in practice. Short tails with a dark
stripe are said to be characteristic of O. a. jubata, but a photograph of adult males taken
in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve (probably in fall, prior to full expression of nuptial coat)
shows some animals with a dark stripe on their tail, others without. A secondary rump
patch (i.e., extending down the haunches on the back legs in an oval shape) that
surrounds the tail is said to be characteristic of O. a. darwini, whereas a sharply
delineated rump patch more restricted to the rump area is said to be characteristic of O. a.
jubata. Yet depending on the orientation of the animal (or perhaps other factors), this
rump patch characteristic appears to vary substantially among individual males in the
same group; observers may not easily agree about whether these characteristics. Two
skins from east of the Lang Shan area in Inner Mongolia were identified as (probably) O.
a. jubata by Dr. Geist, yet based on overall coloration and differences in the shape of the
rump patch and evidence of a tail stripe, appeared quite different to us.
We do not intend for this to be a critique of the Geist (1991) taxonomy; we claim
no similar expertise. Rather, it points out that, even if ultimately proven to be valid, the
characteristics that are clear to Dr. Geist are not necessarily apparent to others, even when
told exactly what to look for. Given that genetic data are beginning to further question
whether long-held (and often morphologically clear) differences are legitimate bases on
which to separate argali taxa (Tserenbataa et al. 2004), and at the same time interests of
the trophy hunting community tend to nudge taxonomy towards pre-determined goals, we
suggest that conservation documents might better avoid using sub-species altogether.
Instead, we suggest that reasonable delineations of argali throughout their large (if
discontinuous) range can be made based on a combination of obvious phenotypic traits
that are likely adaptive (e.g., desert-adapted pelage vs. the long-haired animals of the
perpetually cold Tibetan plateau) and occasionally updated status assessments (e.g.,
reasonably abundant Gobi argali vs. declining Altai argali vs. exceedingly rare Mongolia
from Inner Mongolia). Such delineation might better serve the interests of prioritizing
ecologically adaptive morphs, while allowing for variation in status listings according to
the level of threat.
28
Figure A1. Legs of specimen 45491, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Kwei Hua Cheng”
(Hohhot area), October 22, 1919, showing stripes on metapodia.
29
Figure A2. Legs and rear portion of specimen 57301, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Artsa
Bogdo” (northwest of Gobi Gurvhan Saichan, present day Mongolia), August 23, 1922.
30
Figure A3. Neck of specimen 45491, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Kwei Hua Cheng” (Hohhot area), October 22, 1919, showing lighter hair.
31
Figure A4. Neck of specimen 57301, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Artsa Bogdo”
(northwest of Gobi Gurvhan Saichan, present day Mongolia), August 23, 1922.
32
Figure A5. Skin of adult male argali shot August 24, 1972, approximately 100km north-
northeast of present-day Wuliangsuhai Lake, Inner Mongolia. Courtesy of Institute of
Zoology, Beijing. Note clearly demarcated rump patch, very little tail stripe, and
brownish coloration (although note also that this is summer pelage).