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

1

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

2 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.

3 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,

4 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

5 (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

6 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

7 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.

8

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

9 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

10 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

11 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,

12 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.

13 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.

14 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

15 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).

16 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).

17

Figure 1. Map of Inner Mongolia, showing approximate locations of places mentioned in the text, as well as adjacent countries (Mongolia) and Chinese provinces.

18

Lang Shan

Figure 2. Locations of field surveys in November 2008 and March 2009. Argali were observed (arrow) near Hada Shan, in Sunitezuo Banner.

19

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.

20

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.

21

Figure 5. Bi Junhuai standing next to border fence. Photo: Liu Yan.

22

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.

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 (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.

27

Figure A1. Legs of specimen 45491, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Kwei Hua Cheng” (Hohhot area), October 22, 1919, showing stripes on metapodia.

28

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.

29

Figure A3. Neck of specimen 45491, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Kwei Hua Cheng” (Hohhot area), October 22, 1919, showing lighter hair.

30

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.

31

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).

32

Figure A6. Skin of male argali shot October 9, 1960, near present-day Wuliangsuhai Lake, Inner Mongolia. Note clear stripe on tail, somewhat diffuse rump patch that extends partly onto haunches, dark-gray/brown coloration. Courtesy of Institute of Zoology, Beijing.

33