I don't understand how they're different species from others. By what definition of species are they different species, as opposed to (say) subspecies?
> A genetic analysis of 38 cats from South and Central America, including 26 individuals in the Leopardus tigrinus species complex, revealed that the tigrinus complex consists of five distinct species, including L. tilcayo, which is believed to have split off from other Leopardus species over 1.4 million years ago.[5] The study incorporated genetic material from previously unsampled tiger cats in the Guianas region, near where L. tigrinus was originally described in 1775. Jonas Lescroart, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Antwerp, and co-lead author of the study called it "the most complete genetic study yet" of tiger cats.
The same that they use for the rest of the already known tiger cat species?! This one diverged from its closest relatives 1.3 million years ago. There are other tiger cat species that diverged later than that. Read the paper if you want to know more. You sound like there’s a >epsilon probability you, a random HN reader, found a gotcha in a paper by the experts of the field because you’re so smart that you know that the definition of "species" is sometimes fluid. Great job, I’m sure the authors don’t know that.
Could you maybe be a little bit more charitable than snarky? "Just read the paper" is not helpful when the paper is like 50 pages. It's not like I know what makes the other cats different species either. Nobody is trying to "gotcha" the researchers here, I'm just trying to understand what makes the cats a different species vs. a subspecies. We all know the definitions are fluid and I've heard of a couple in the past but I've never heard of one that solely looks at DNA divergence, so I'm pretty clueless and trying to learn something here. If you know the answer, this is not the way to share it.
