178 A.M. Jemmett et al.
FIG. 2 Current range of the wild camel Camelus ferus (data from the IUCN Red List; Hare, 2008).
The widely held image of double-humped camels is the domestic animal, not this rare species. There are currently 934 Bactrian camels in captivity across 263 zoos and private collections (Zoological Information Management System, 2020). In Mongolia alone, national statistics estimated the 2021 population of Bactrian camels to be 454,038 (Mongolian Statistical Database, 2022). Although there is no accurate global population estimate, the FAOSTAT database, which does not distinguish between Bactrian and dromedary camels, estimates the total global domestic camel population to be .35 million (Faye, 2020). Regard- ing the wild camel, there are just 41 in captivity, in a single institution in Mongolia, and ,1,000 remaining in the wild across Mongolia and China (Fig. 2; Hare, 2008). It is there- fore understandable that the first animal that comes to mind when thinking of a two-humped camel is the Bactrian camel as most people will be more aware of this species. They will have seen it on television, in zoos or private collections or working as a beast of burden, and so will presume correctly that this species is safe from the risk of extinction. Zoological institutions are partly responsible for inaccu-
racies in naming by failing to distinguish wild camels from the Bactrian camels held in their collections. Zoological in- stitutions could be using the plight of the wild camel to ad- vertise the Bactrian camels they have on display. On 8–12 March 2021 we searched the websites of all zoological organizations recorded on the Zoological Information Management System as holding Bactrian camels, to assess how they referred to them. Of 263 institutions, 134 (all in Europe or North America) had some relevant information on their websites.Wefound that of 133 institutions reporting the common name, 2% incorrectly referred to their camels as ‘wild camel’. However, 16%of 102 institutions that reported the scientific name did so incorrectly, using C. ferus to advertise C. bactrianus. A total of 85 institutions reported the IUCN Red List status of C. bactrianus and of
these 84% reported it as Critically Endangered. A correct Red List status for C. bactrianus would be Not Evaluated rather than the commonly reported Critically Endangered. This could be in part due to the IUCN Red list using C. bactrianus as a synonym for C. ferus (Hare, 2008). Of the 96 institutions that used information pertaining to both species, in terms of either naming or extinction threat, only 21 (22%) stated explicitly that there are two separate species. By unknowingly or intentionally advertising the Bactrian camel as C. ferus and/or as Critically Endangered, institutions are failing to distinguish the two species and their respective conservation status. This could generate a perception of the species as safe in captivity at numerous institutions, which is not the case. In addition, the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the Bactrian camel is ‘The two-humped camel, which has been domesticated but is still found wild in central Asia. Camelus ferus (including the domesticated C. bactrianus), family Camelidae’ (Oxford English Dictionary, undated). With such misinformation, confusion is understandable.
Conclusion
Use of inappropriate English common names for the wild camel could contribute to the continued confusion in spe- cies distinction, and risks generating or reinforcing the perception that this Critically Endangered species is at least safe in captivity. In English texts, we advocate using only the English common name ‘wild camel’, and not ‘Bactrian’, to describe C. ferus. Indigenous names should also be used either in place of English common names or alongside them wherever possible. Unlike the Romans, we have good reason to distinguish between camel species.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge our coauthor, friend and in- spiration, John Hare, who is no longer with us in person, but lives on in our drive to save the wild camel. This research was funded by theWild Camel Protection Foundation. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Author contributions Study design: AMJ, JGE; analysis, writing: all authors.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References ALMATHEN, F., CHARRUAU, P.,MOHANDESAN, E.,MWACHARO, J.M., OROZCO-TERWENGEL, P., PITT,D. et al. (2016)Ancient andmodern DNAreveal dynamics of domestication and cross-continental dispersal of the dromedary. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 6707–6712.
BLADES,B.(2020) What’s in a name? An evidence-based approach to understanding the implications of vernacular name on
Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 175–179 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322000114
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
