Who was the photographer, Walter S. Pitt?

In my last post I showed a photograph by W.S. Pitt from Smith’s The British Amphibians and Reptiles, first published in 1951. Pitt produced nearly all the photographs for that volume and his name looms large in books and magazines of that era. But who was Walter S. Pitt?

I have found virtually no information on him other than that Walter Pitt was a member of The Zoological Photographic Club. A Walter Pitt was also a member of the Bath Photographic Society in 1888. Was this the same Walter Pitt? A Walter Pitt also appeared in a magazine article on angel fish in the 1920s.

Was he a professional photographer or a keen amateur? I would really like to know.

QUESTION SOLVED - See my post of 19 July 2022 HERE.

Grass Snakes: How good science turned into fake news

Last year new research suggested that the European Grass Snake, Natrix natrix, should be split into two species. The split removed Natrix helvetica, now called the Barred Grass Snake (previously Natrix natrix helvetica) from Natrix natrix, the Common Grass Snake.

The research involved the study of both mitochondrial and nuclear, microsatellite, DNA. The authors showed that there is a division running through western Europe between the two forms. But there was more: evidence that the two forms were separate species rather than merely genetic lineages of the same species. A narrow hybrid zone was found between the two forms, indicating that while there is some mixing of genes, the selection against hybrids is strong and that there are intrinsic reproductive isolating mechanisms. In other words, there is evidence that the two forms are good biological species. An analogous case is that of the Yellow-bellied Toad of Western Europe (Bombina variegata) and the Fire-bellied Toad (B. bombina) of Eastern Europe.

I should point out that the hybrid zone between the two species of snake runs across Germany—where the research was done. That country, therefore, now has two grass snakes rather than one.

The split (or re-split since some earlier taxonomists regarded the species as separate) largely coincides with earlier morphological research done in the 1970s by Roger Thorpe, now of Bangor University in North Wales, who has written a useful comment on the new paper on ResearchGate including the rôle of the Ice Ages in causing the split.

At this stage, it was so far so good.

Anybody in Britain with the slightest knowledge of herpetology would have been surprised by the headlines that appeared in the media in early August. The Times, for example, carried the headline, ‘Snakes alive: new species has been living in England’. It and the rest of the British media, including not surprisingly the BBC, had clearly used a press release intended for the German media, since, while the name of ‘our’ grass snake changed to Natrix helvetica, we still had only the one species and not the two of the British media reports. I fired off a letter to The Times which was published on 12 August.

An article in a recent Herpetological Bulletin (British Herpetological Society) by two of the authors of the original paper gave a splendid explanation of what had happened:

This upheaval resulted from a complete misunderstanding of a press release by the Senckenberg Institution. The press release pointed out that Europe now has one more full snake species, which was misinterpreted as Britain gaining an additional snake species. In Brexit times, we have great sympathies with this approach. However, we have to face reality. Since the Kingdom of Hanover was lost from the United Kingdom in 1837, only one species of grass snake lives within UK borders (excluding a few introduced N. natrix and their offspring identified by our study). Until our paper was published (Kindler et al., 2017), the native British populations were assigned to the subspecies Natrix natrix helvetica, also widely distributed on the continent. Now, the strong evidence we presented indicates that this subspecies should be recognised as a full species, Natrix helvetica. Yet, this did not add another species to the British fauna, the British populations simply changed their identity label, as will all Britons when they leave the European Union. They will no longer be listed as EU citizens, but otherwise they will remain the same.

Finally, a photograph of a British Natrix helvetica. This is from the 2nd (1954) edition of Malcolm Smith's book in the Collins New Naturalist series, The British Amphibians and Reptiles. The photographer was Walter S. Pitt:

Kindler C, Chèvre M, Ursenbacher S, Böhme W, Hille A, Jablonski D, Vamberger M, Fritz U. 2017. Hybridization patterns in two contact zones of grass snakes reveal a new Central European snake species. Scientific Reports 7: 7378. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-07847-9

Fritz U, Kindler C. 2017. A very European tale – Britain still has only three snake species, but its grass snake is now assigned to another species (Natrix helvetica). Herpetological Bulletin 141, 44-45.

Peaker M. 2017. Snake in the grass. [Letter]. The Times, 10 August 2017.

Pika or Pika. You say to-mate-o: I say to-maht-o

I used to pronounce pika, peeka, but then began to wonder since half the world seemed to be saying pike-a.

I read that the word was first used in 1827 and comes from Tunguse, a Siberian language, piika, pronounced peeka, or peaker, if you really like. The Canadians claim the correct pronunciation, with pike-a being very much American, as in United States of.

So, it is definitely peeka from now on.

Plateau Pika and the extensive burrows on the Tibetan Plateau

If we had seen Chinese Mountain Cats, what are these?

When I was looking up photographs of Chinese Mountain Cats before and after travelling to Sichuan last November, I was puzzled. A number of photographs illustrating websites do not really look like the cats we saw by night in Sichuan or photographed during the day by others. The photographs in question were taken in Xining Zoo which is within the Chinese Mountain Cat’s range in Qinghai Province further north from where we were.

Photograph from Xining Zoo used
to illustrate for example the article
on the Chinese Mountain Cat
on Wikipedia

The only explanation I could think of at the time was that there is either considerable change in pelage with season or that there is geographical or wide individual variation in coloration. Then when looking up Pocock’s description of the species in his Catalogue of the Genus Felis, I realised that the animals in these photographs match the description of what he considered a second sub-species. To remind readers that ‘our’ Chinese Mountain Cats fit the description of his first subspecies, Felis bieti bieti. This, from Pocock, on Felis bieti chutuchta:

According to Birula this cat differs from F. pallida (=bieti) in being redder in colour and more distinctly striped transversely. The back has a longitudinal band tawny fuscous and varied with black; the head is marked with short fuscous lines and three stripes on the cheek; the ears behind are reddish grey and spotted with white at the base and apically pencilled; the lips, chin and throat are white, with a wide, reddish band on the throat; the abdomen is white with black spots; the tail is shortish and coloured like the back, with four or five thin black stripes and a black tip at its distal end. All the apparent differences from bieti might be individual, perhaps seasonal.

This cat had been described by A.A. Bialynicky-Birula (1864-1938) of St Petersburg in 1917 as a new species, Felis chutucha, from the Gobi Desert in Southern Mongolia. It was later lumped first into Felis pallida and then when pallida was recognised as a synonym of F. bieti into bieti, with Pocock having it from 1943 as the second subspecies.

However, Pocock noted there was something odd about the skull or at least about the several authors who had described it and used it for taxonomic purposes. Later authors have considered the skull of chutucha to be that of a Wildcat. Indeed some people have included it in the mammalian fauna of Mongolia and have called it the Gobi Cat, Felis silvestris chutucha. These authors include Haltenorth in 1953 and the late Colin Groves in 1980. I have not seen their papers. This view on the skull has been upheld by the observations of A. Abramov reported in the very recent Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae.

The place where the specimen of chutucha were collected from was not the Gobi Desert. The original location was identified by He et al. (2004) as Ningxia in Inner Mongolia, not that far from its known present distribution. I say ‘specimen’ because the Museum in St Petersburg has the skin (the description of which is in Pocock) and a skull. The skin and skull were collected during Pyotr Kozlov’s expedition in 1908—one of those which during The Great Game gave the British the heebie-jeebies about Russian encroachment into India. I know nothing of the circumstances of the collection of those two specimens but given the vicissitudes of collecting and labelling and knowing that skins were traded commercially, is it possible that the skin and the skull are not from the same animal?

Confusing as all this is and hanging on a single skin and a single skull, we now have some intriguing possibilities. If the skin really is indistinguishable from that of those animals collected and kept alive in Xining and if the skull did not belong to the same animal as the skin, then there is clearly some variation in the coloration of F. bieti which would either restore Pocock’s classification in two subspecies or point to a cline from greyish-sandy with faint stripes to more reddish with stronger stripes in the north. However, and again if the skin really is indistinguishable from that of those animals collected and kept alive in Xining, but the skin and skull in St Petersburg are from the same animal, then because the experts consider the skull be be that of a Wildcat and not F. bieti, then those specimens in Xining are/were not Chinese Mountain Cats at all but either a distinctive and undescribed form of the Asian Wildcat or a closely-related but undescribed species.

Caroline Simpson's photograph (from Flickr) of a Chinese Mountain Cat
on the Tibetan Plateau of Sichuan, September 2017, as a reminder of what
Pocock's Felis bieti bieti looks like

Such are the difficulties of dealing with very few specimens of difficult provenance and illustrate why we need to know much more about the small cats of the world in general and of the still wild parts of China in particular.

Still confused about small cats? Then throw in the domestic cat and the possibility of it appearing in a bewildering variety of colour, patterns and shapes and of it hybridising with local wild cat species, then there is plenty of scope to be even more confused. Working out who’s who in the cats of the world has a long way to run.

References are shown in the previous post.

What is the Chinese Mountain Cat aka Steppe Cat, Desert Cat, Felis bieti?

The Chinese Mountain Cats that we saw by spotlight on the Tibetan Plateau in Sichuan have found themselves to be in a state of taxonomic confusion and disagreement. This is not surprising  or unusual for a small cat since there are relatively few specimens in museums and the division of small cats into robust taxons is well known to be difficult. Add to that the differences in species concepts adopted and vigorously defended by different workers with the addition with several possible interpretations of DNA data, it is easy to see why recent papers have pulled the animal in two directions: first it was lumped into the local Wildcat (itself the subject of controversy); then it was restored as a proper species.

In 1892 Alphonse Milne-Edwards described a new species of cat; he named it Felis bieti for Felix Biet (1838–1904) a French missionary. Neither a type specimen nor the locality was noted in the original description but Glover Morrill Allen (1879-1942) in his book explained that Prince Henri d’Orléans (1867-1901) brought back the two specimens to Paris from Tongolo and Tatsienlu in Sichuan. Henri d’Orléans, noted duellist and anglophobe, led an expedition, at the insistence of, and paid for by, his father from Siberia to Indo-China.

Shortly after Milne-Edwards, Eugen Alexander Büchner (1861-1913) of St Petersburg described what turned out to be the same species as Felis pallida, a name actually appropriate to its appearance and one which Allen used for the common name, Pale Desert Cat in his book. A number of other common names have been used for F. bieti: Chinese Mountain Cat; Chinese Steppe Cat; Chinese Desert Cat.

It seems that nobody has found a modern location of Tongola but Tatsienlu is now known as Kangding on what, historically, was the border between China and Tibet (and, incidentally, about 60 km west of where we were watching Red Pandas).

Although my video as well as several other videos available on YouTube were taken at night by spotlight, it can be seen that the appearance of the cats is the same as a still photograph taken by day by Caroline Simpson two months before our visit:

Chinese Mountain Cat on the Tibetan Plateau, September 2017
Photograph by Caroline Simpson (from Flickr)

It is quite clear that all—except, and possibly importantly, one—of the still photographs and videos taken of ‘mountain cats’ on the Tibetan Plateau near Ruoergai in Sichuan conform with the description of the F. bieti. And this is where I went back into the classical descriptive zoology of the early 20th Century.

Reginald Innes Pocock FRS (1863-1947) wrote his Catalogue of the Genus Felis but it had to be edited and published posthumously by the Natural History Museum in 1951. There is a perfect description of ‘our’ cat under the subspecies F. b. bieti (which Pocock himself had proposed earlier to distinguish it from another subspecies that I will return to later and in a subsequent post). I will not repeat the description here other than to point out that he did not specifically mention the tail although he did describe it for his other subspecies; the tails were clearly similar.

I am therefore entirely content with the conclusion that ‘our’ Chinese Mountain Cats on the Tibetan Plateau in Sichuan were what had been originally described as Felis bieti.

As I mentioned earlier the molecular phylogeneticists have not left the difficult problem of small cat taxonomy untackled. Thus we had a paper in Science in 2007 which, in considering the origins of the domestic cat, lumped, amongst other lumpings, Felis bieti into the Wildcat as the subspecies, Felis silvestris bieti. It is this classification that one finds on many current websites. However, I did not find the authors’ argument persuasive (see below for a possible interpretation) since models drawn from mitochondrial DNA (i.e. maternal line) differed from those built from microsatellite (nuclear DNA) data.

One of the authors of the paper described, Andrew Kitchener, of what is now ungrammatically known as National Museums Scotland, then took the opposite view in 2009. After modelling the geographical distribution from 18,000 years ago until the present, he, with E.E. Rees of the University of Alberta at Edmonston, wrote:

The palaeo-DDMs [Deduced Distribution Model] provide no clear support for the redesignation of the Chinese steppe cat Felis bieti as a subspecies of F. silvestris [Wildcat] based on Driscoll et al.’s (2007) phylogeographical analysis, except that the effective loss of the central Asian distribution during the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] may have resulted in introgression between F. bieti and F. s. ornata, in small isolated habitat fragments. Distinctive morphology and possible sympatry with Asian wildcats suggest that the Chinese steppe cat is a distinct species whether using the BSC or PSC.

The latter argument—that Felis bieti—is a ‘good’ species appears to be holding sway since the species has been retained in the IUCN’s Cat Specialist Group’s Cat Classification Task Force report, Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae published very recently. 

The Task Force was chaired by Andrew Kitchener and comprised a Core Group, an Expert Group and a Review Group. Given the wide membership, backgrounds and adherence to different species concepts, it is not at all surprising that disagreements remain. To complicate matters a little further, the Wildcat of Eurasia has been split/resplit into two species, Felis silvestris, the European Wildcat and Felis lybica, the African and Asian wildcats, so the section on Felis bieti reads:

There has been no recent taxonomic study of this species since Groves* (1980), although Driscoll et al. (2007) showed that Felis bieti was basal to Felis silvestris (sensu lato) according to mtDNA, but a sister taxon to Felis lybica ornata from microsatellites, which suggests that Felis bieti may have an ancient hybrid origin, possibly during the last glaciation when the distribution of F. l. ornata was apparently restricted to a very small area in Central Asia (Kitchener & Rees 2009). F. bieti is morphologically distinct and is supposedly sympatric with F. l. ornata, which would also preclude its recognition as a subspecies of F. silvestris/lybica. However, C. Driscoll (pers. obs.) maintains this species as a subspecies within F. silvestris (sensu lato).

The stated distribution of Felis bieti has tightened over the years, not as a result of habitat loss, but as a result of excluding misidentified specimens. Li He, Rosa García-Perea, Ming Li and Fuwen Wei began their paper of a study made in 2000 and 2001:

One of the problems is the difficulty of identification. This cat is almost unknown to Chinese scientists, and the few specimens kept at Chinese institutions are mostly misidentified. A similar confusion applies to local hunters, who do not know what species they are dealing with when they capture the animal (pers. obs.). Fur traders are probably more familiar with the identification of the species, but they do not have an interest in the geographical origin of any pelts that they receive. Therefore it is common to find incorrect information in the local literature, with the species often confused with manul Otocolobus manul, Asiatic wildcats of the Felis silvestris [lybica] ornata group, or lynx Lynx lynx (e.g. Wang, 1990, 1991). Thus any information on the distribution and occurrence of the species requires careful evaluation of the source.

The authors looked at 45 specimens and living individuals, 168 reports from the literature and 21 records from local hunters. However, I found the criteria for inclusion as F. bieti to be unclear and while some of the records were obviously wrong, I have the suspicion that further studies will reveal a wider distribution, particularly to the west. As a result of this study though, the distribution map below is the one that is currently accepted.

modified from Sanderson et al. 2010

We found it difficult at night to estimate the size of the Chinese Mountain Cats we saw. The Guide to the Mammals of China says about twice the size of a domestic cat but the data given by Pocock do not support such a large difference. The head-body length of skins in museums tend to be longer than in real life and so absolute size is not very informative. Some of the skins are from the fur trade and could well have been stretched. Pocock’s data showed a range of 16-23 inches for the skins of feral domestic cats from various parts of the world compared with 28-33.5 inches for specimens collected as, or assigned to, Felis bieti bieti. Taking the medians of 19.5 inches for the feral cats and 30.3 for F. bieti, the latter are about 1.5 times the length of a feral domestic cat. But given that feral cats tend to be smaller than those kept in the house, about a third larger seems a fair estimate. Indeed, Allen’s description begins, 'About the size of a house cat…'

Ours, and other sightings of Chinese Mountain Cats on the Tibetan Plateau in recent years, have been made possible by the efforts of that indefatigable guide to, and font of knowledge of, the birds and mammals of Sichuan, Sid Francis. There is, though, a fairly recent photograph from one of his trips to the Tibetan Plateau in 2015 of a  cat which does not appear to conform to the others. That cat was seen during and photographed by Yann Muzika; the photograph was shown in Small Wild Cat Conservation News in May 2015:

from Small Wild Cat Conservation News, May 2015

To my untrained eye it looks more like a Wildcat, i.e. Felis silvestris/lybica, even accounting for any possible seasonal shift in pelage. If so, the presence of this species together with F. bieti would demonstrate sympatry (i.e. both occur in the same area) and provide conclusive evidence that Felis bieti is indeed a ‘good’ species. In that respect it is interesting that the distribution map for the Wildcat in A Guide to the Mammals of China (which also has a good painting of F. bieti, if a little angular) has a series of question marks for that area of Sichuan.

I do have one main concern left though. There are photographs of animals, clearly identified as F. bieti that do not really conform with the photographs and videos shown and referred to in this article. I will deal with that question, with some delving into the classical literature and much inadequate knowledge in a subsequent post.

There is very much more to be discovered about the Chinese Mountain Cat and indeed many of the small cats of the world. We just counted ourselves lucky and privileged to have seen Chinese Mountains Cats and Pallas’s Cats on the grasslands of the eastern Tibetan Plateau.


*Colin Groves died on 30 November 2017.

The following will also provide references to other research on the Chinese Mountain Cat

Allen GM. 1938. The mammals of China and Mongolia. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Driscoll CA, Menotti-Raymond M, Roca AL, Hupe K, Johnson WE, Geffen E, Harley EH, Delibes M, Pontier D, Kitchener AC, Yamaguchi N, O’Brien SJ, Macdonald DW. 2007. The near eastern origin of cat domestication. Science 317, 519-523. doi:10.1126/science.1139518

He L, Garcia-Perea R, Li M, Wei F. 2004. Distribution and conservation status of the endemic Chinese Mountain Cat Felis bieti. Oryx 38, 55-61.

Kitchener AC, Rees E. 2009. Modelling the dynamic biogeography of the wildcat: implications for taxonomy and conservation. Journal of Zoology 279, 144-155.

Kitchener AC, Breitenmoser-Würsten C, Eizirik E, Gentry A, Werdelin L, Wilting A, Yamaguchi N, Abramov AV, Christiansen P, Driscoll CA, Duckworth JW, Johnson WE, Luo SJ, Meijaard E, O’Donoghue P, Sanderson J, Seymour K, Bruford MW, Groves C, Hoffmann M, Nowell K, Timmons Z, Tobe SS. 2017. A revised taxonomy of the Felidae. The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. Cat News Special Issue (11). ISSN 1027-2992

Pocock RI. 1951. Catalogue of the genus Felis. London: British Museum

Sanderson J, Yufeng Y, Naktsang D. 2010. Of the only endemic cat species of China. 
http://www.catsg.org/fileadmin/filesharing/5.Cat_News/5.3._Special_Issues/5.3.5._SI_5/Sanderson_et_al_2010_The_Chinese_Mountain_cat.pdf

Wozencraft WC. 2008 In, Smith AT, Xie Y. editors, A Guide to the Mammals of China. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Conservation Trusts and Charities: How good are they?

When travelling abroad I often see or hear of the work of some non-governmental conservation body or other working on a particular species, group of species or habitat. Sometimes they are big organisations and sometimes they are small, even one-man bands running on money provided by sponsors. The cynic in me, though, asks: How do we know that the work they are doing needs to be done? How effective are they at doing what they say they are doing? How efficient are they in doing what they are doing? Are some doing more harm than good, or having no effect?

I do not know the answers. There is competition for funding from private and corporate sponsors, government agencies and non-governmental organisations. Therefore the websites and written material of organisations are there to say how bad the problem they are are working on is and what a great job they are doing in tackling it—advertising puff in other words, just like that put out by British universities and so-called universities.

My impression—and I have no evidence to back it up—is that many organisations do a very good job in difficult conditions but I have the lingering suspicion some are there to provide their founders with an income to enjoy the lifestyle.

My very limited Latin prevents me from adapting Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? to Who watches the conservationists? 

Encounters with the Chinese Mountain Cat (and other nocturnal mammals) on the Tibetan Plateau in China

No sooner had we turned off the main road south of Ruoergai on the Tibetan Plateau in Sichuan and turned on the spotlights to scan the grasslands than a Chinese Mountain Cat was spotted by its eye shine. It was a good distance away but our track and its path were converging. Then the cat turned towards us as it hunted for rodents and I was able to take some video footage by torchlight. My camera was at the limit and the footage at these very low light levels is grainy but the salient features of this little-known cat that we could see through binoculars can just be discerned.

The late evening turned out to be one of those night-spotting classics that make spotlighting or lamping such a worthwhile experience. None of the mammals were close enough to be filmed but all could be seen through binoculars. After that Mountain Cat (Felis bieti) we saw another two plus Woolly Hares (Lepus oiostolus), a Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), an Asian Badger (Meles leucurus), a Steppe Polecat (Mustela eversmannii) which was searching pika burrows for prey but then disappeared from view, and three Wolves (Canis lupus). The wolves were stopping, listening and then moving on to stop and listen again. Domestic yak herds are kept on the grasslands and it is hardly surprising that the yak herders have the enormous and fierce Tibetan Mastiff as guard dogs.

The following night Tibetan Foxes (Vulpes ferrilata) abounded; we saw ten, as well as a Mountain Cat and a Red Fox. On a final night it was Red Foxes, six this time, a Mountain Cat and an Asian Badger.

It was the density of the predators that surprised us, especially the numbers of Tibetan and Red Foxes in a relatively small area. The grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau are really productive in terms of producing large rodent and lagomorph populations which together with the odd dead yak must provide rich pickings for the carnivores.

I will return to the Chinese Mountain Cat in a later post.