Applied Baraminology (Research Article)

This article is the fun article. In this article, I get to demonstrate how the enhanced baraminology concept works for numerous different creatures.  Every baraminology study in this chapter is original with the author with one exception. In selecting creatures to study, I attempted to use creatures where previous baraminology studies had not been performed.  However, it is possible I have duplicated studies, in which case my results ought to be compared against previously published work and a discerned decision made based on the available data. With that in mind, let us get into some baraminology.


The family Phocidae consists of the earless seals, sometimes called pinnipeds. The pinnipeds were not discussed in the Answers in Genesis ark kinds series because they spend the vast majority of their lives in the water, and thus would have survived just fine during the flood[1].  In fact, the flood likely explains the inland nature of the Caspian seal, which lives exclusively in the inland Caspian Sea.

Based on the available information, a few species of earless seals hybridize.  Gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) hybridize with two other species, the Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and the Ringed Seal (Pusa hispida)[2][3]. Note that the Harbor Seal’s breeding with the Gray seal has been observed, but full-grown hybrids have not been observed.  However, there is no reason to doubt that, based on Scherer’s definition of hybridization success, that this hybridization succeeds.   Based on this, we can safely assume that the Harbor seal and the Ringed seal can also interbreed since they both breed with the Gray seal. However, we can go a step further.  Since we assume breeding within the genera as being likely, we can extrapolate from that to state that the Gray seal can also breed with the Nerpa seal (Pusa sibirica) and the Caspian seal (Pusa capsica).

The Harbor seal is also documented to interbreed with the other member of its genera, the Spotted seal (Phoca largha)[4]. Based on this documentation, we can assume safely, without any extrapolation, that the Spotted seal can interbreed with the grey seal. It would appear that the genus Phoca could be combined with genus Pusa and Halichoerus since members interbreed. Indeed, Pusa used to be lumped into Phoca.

There is one other documented hybridization among pinnipeds. This one is between the Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandica) and the Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata). In this case, living offspring are formed as part of the hybridization[5]. Since the Harp seal also used to be in genus Phoca the argument could be made that this is an extra hybridization link. However, I will not do so here.

seal hybridogram

Figure 10.1 Pinniped Hybridogram

As you can see from the above hybridogram, there is much work to be done. There are thirty-three species of seal on the above hybridogram, of which seven are either extinct or likely extinct. Of the remaining extant species, twelve are connected to at least one other species by either assumed or demonstrated hybrid data. However, there is no direct link between all twenty-six extant species.  Thus demonstrating that all pinnipeds are members of the same baramin is going to require a discontinuity matrix as well.

To properly use the discontinuity matrix, we need to compare the pinnipeds against something. Based on evolutionary classification the closest relatives of the pinnipeds are walruses and sea lions.  Thus, in using the discontinuity matrix, we will compare the pinnipeds to the walruses and sea lions and attempt to determine if there is true discontinuity between seals, sea lions and walruses.


Question Yes? No?
Is there Scriptural discontinuity? (TCW, KPW) No
Is Hybridization data lacking? Yes(some hybrid data within group)
Does hybridization fail outside the group? (KPW) Yes(a few known attempts outside group but no offspring)
Are there extinct organisms classified in this group? Yes
Do most members of the group possess unique structures or metabolic pathways for their group? (TCW) No
Is the group more morphologically similar within the group than it is with things outside the group? (TCW) (KPW) Yes
Is there strong genetic discontinuity among many genes? (TCW) (KPW) (Note this information may be unavailable) NA NA
Does this group occupy a specialized environment? (TCW) (KPW) Yes
Does this group have fossil evidence linking it to other groups? (KPW) (TCW) (Note, do not take evolutionists word on this)  



Does this group naturally appear discontinuous from other groups? Yes
Are there any members of the group with highly specialized traits? Yes

Figure 10.2 Seal Discontinuity Matrix

Based on this discontinuity matrix, we can learn some very interesting things. Seals are never directly mentioned in the Bible so attempting to build a Biblical case for a kind is impossible.  Hybridization data is available, but it is limited.  There are some known attempts to hybridize outside the pinniped group such as the aforementioned attempt of otters to breed with female seals[6], or the documented attempts of male elephant seals to breed with female fur seals[7].  However, in both cases, death tends to be the result for the females and no hybrids have been documented as yet.

There are a few extinct organisms classified in this group, more if the purported evolutionary missing links are lumped in as well. However, as is usually true, the missing links are either misclassified or made almost of whole cloth so they will be ignored for the purposes of this study.

Morphologically, most seals group together very closely. They all lack external ears, and have flippers that force them to drag themselves along on land, but enable them to swim nearly effortlessly.  However, elephant seals are an outlier.  They are much larger than most other seals, with males reaching a massive twenty feet in length, and have facial characteristics vastly different, with a small, elephant style trunk on the males.  In fact, if you remove the tusks, elephant seals look more similar to walruses than they do to other seals.

There are significant similarities between walruses and elephant seals. Between them, they are the largest members of the pinniped group, with elephant seals being the largest.  It also swims in the same manner as seals and lacks external ears. Like elephant seals, walruses lack hair on most of their body. Both swim in a similar manner as well. Both have thick layers of blubber as insulation against the cold.  They also share vibrissae, whiskers that they use to help find prey.

There are a few differences, in particular, the obvious facial ones.  Walruses have long tusks they use to dig in the substrate in search of food, while elephant seals have an elephant-like trunk in males. Walruses also can walk on four flippers, unlike the elephant seals, which cannot.  They also have strong behavioral differences, with elephant seals being deep divers and feeding on fish, cephalopods, sharks, rays, and other similar creatures. Walruses are shallow water creatures, preferring shellfish, marine arthropods, some corals, and periodically will hunt or scavenge from other pinnipeds, birds and even potentially on occasion whales.

Comparison with the fur seals and sea lions reveals a cognitive outgroup from both seals and walruses. Unlike walruses and seals, sea lions and fur seals have external ears, and thick, dense hair.  The fur seals differ from the sea lions as well. In particular, the ability to walk on all fours agilely separates the fur seals and sea lions cognitively from the Walruses and earless seals.

Cognitively then, we can eliminate the possibility that seals, and sea lions are the same baramin, pending attempts to combine their gametes in the lab.  However, are walruses and seals in the same baramin?  This is where the complications arise.

Using a cognitive grouping of, the only standout members of the Phocids are the two species of elephant seals. The remainder of the seals’ group together strongly cognitively, and some also have documented hybridization data.  It then remains to be determined whether elephant seals belong in the Phocid baramin.  Based on its size, distinctive features, including largely lacking hair, elephant-like proboscis,  and ability to pull itself upright, it would seem to cognitively be separate from the remainder of the Phocids.  Thus the Phocid seals, minus the elephant seals, can be viewed as their own created baramin.

If the elephant seals are indeed separate from the other Phocids, do they then naturally group with the walruses?  There are, as mentioned above, quite a few similarities between the two.  The only real differences are the facial features and the flippers ability to turn to the side in walruses to enable walking on all fours. The remainder of the differences are behavioral and, while important, are not significant enough to separate them since they share similar habitats. Based on the few differences and the strong similarities, it seems logical that the elephant seals and walruses should be placed together in their own baramin.

This grouping is somewhat borne out by evolutionary phylogenetic studies. Genus Mirounga which comprises the elephant seals is believed to be its own separate subclade, apart from the remainder of the seals, under the clade Monachinae[8][9].

However, using the BLAST software available from NIH, the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina’s mitochondrial genome was compared to the mitochondrial genome of the walrus, Odobenus rosmarus. This revealed that their base similarity was a mere 84%[10].  By contrast, the human/chimp mitochondrial sequence similarity is 92%.  However, the issue here is mitochondrial DNA. As previously mentioned, mtDNA is far from reliable as a mechanism for determining heredity. Whole genome is more reliable. However, the whole genome of the elephant seals has not been made available yet.

The whole genome of the walrus, Odobenus rosmarus, is available, though it is still in shotgun pieces and is not quite complete.  The elephant seals genomes also exist in pieces so attempting to compare it to the whole walrus genome is completely impossible. However, where sections are available which perform a similar function, they have been compared to arrive at a tentative similarity average.  A whole genome comparison would be better, but is unavailable at present.

Based on the available genetic data, and, we can tentatively assign the walrus and the elephant seals to the same baramin which I’ve tentatively called Ceteopimusae[11]. This is an extremely tentative grouping and could be more robust if both the walrus and elephant seal complete genomes were available to compare. However, using the 28 genes which were available for comparison, with some having multiple sequences available, an average similarity of just over 97% appears[12]. Once again, this is still very tentative.  However, based on the cognitum presented by elephant seals and walruses, the lack of hybridization data of any form, and the relative similarity of the available genetics, classifying walruses and elephant seals together in the same baramin seems a valid, if tentative, conclusion.


The parrotfish are easily recognizable denizens of the reef, with bright colors and a very obvious set of teeth at the front of the mouth that it they use to bite algae off rocks and corals.   There are ten genera of parrotfish, comprising around 95 species.  Since they are fish, they would not have been on the Ark, and thus baraminology data does not exist for this group.

This group is much more difficult to work with. There is almost no hybridization data available for this group, with one exception coming from genus Scarus, the largest of the parrotfish genera.  In this genera, four species are known to hybridize, with one of the species, S. compressus, likely the result of hybridization[13].  There is no other available data as yet.

parrotfish hybridogram

Figure 10.3 Hybridogram of Parrotfish


Obviously, there is a lot left unknown based on the above hybridogram. Very little hybridization data is present. This would be a good area for a lab researcher to dig into and discover, as indeed is most baraminological data.

However, fortunately, cognitively, the species of parrotfish all do seem to fit well together. In particular, their characteristic beak stands out as a defining feature of the family.  Their diet, ability to change color, and sequential hermaphroditism (in most species) also lends credence to this view. Their body plans are largely similar, and they have similar reproductive behaviors. These features all lend themselves to a similar cognitive grouping.


Question Yes? No?
Is there Scriptural discontinuity? (TCW, KPW) No
Is Hybridization data lacking? Yes
Does hybridization fail outside the group? (KPW) Unknown
Are there extinct organisms classified in this group? Yes
Do most members of the group possess unique structures or metabolic pathways for their group? (TCW) Yes
Is the group more morphologically similar within the group than it is with things outside the group? (TCW) (KPW) Yes
Is there strong genetic discontinuity among many genes? (TCW) (KPW) (Note this information may be unavailable) Unknown Unknown
Does this group occupy a specialized environment? (TCW) (KPW) Yes
Does this group have fossil evidence linking it to other groups? (KPW) (TCW) (Note, do not take evolutionists word on this)  



Does this group naturally appear discontinuous from other groups? Yes
Are there any members of the group with highly specialized traits? Yes

Figure 10.4 Parrotfish discontinuity matrix.


Based on this discontinuity matrix, it would seem that the parrotfish can indeed be separated into their own created baramin. This is tentative, since so little hybrid data is available, but cognitively, the group is strongly distinctive, even more so than the Phocids.

Perhaps because they are denizens of the deep, parrotfish DNA data is sorely lacking.  In most cases, all that is available is mtDNA, which, as has been previously mentioned, is not an ideal arbiter for the baramin. However, BLAST sequences for the mtDNA that was available were compared as part of this study.  Similarity was small among those fishes with available mtDNA, hovering around 80%, except within the same genera, where the percentages entered the 90s. Pending whole genome data, this mtDNA data is going to be ignored as unreliable.

Based on the strong cognitum displayed by the parrotfish, particularly in behavior and appearance, it would seem that they represent a single created kind. This conclusion is tentative at best, however, since hybrid data is extremely lacking. As DNA data is unreliable at this point, all that is available is the cognitum and statistics. Since statistics are almost entirely unreliable, the cognitum is all that is available to draw on. Therefore, tentatively, we will call the parrotfishes their own baramin, Scaridae.


The mignonettes are a relatively small family of plants containing seventy-two verified species, and dozens of other potential species. The family is not well established, with several genera being both moved in and out in recent years. Due to this, a discontinuity matrix was not created for this baraminological study.  Hybridization data from this family is completely absent.   A cognitive examination of the genera currently in this family reveals two strong groupings.  One group is characterized by broad leaves, branching venation, raceme inflorescence, and non-herbaceous stems and consists of three monospecific genera and one slightly larger genus. The other group is much larger and is characterized by thin, narrow leaves, parallel venation, racemic and panicle inflorescence, and a variety of stem types, from herbaceous, to fully woody.

Based on the cognitive appearance of the genera, two groups present themselves.  The first group I’ve christened Neothoreliaea and consists of four genera as shown in the below table.  The second group remained Resedaceae, and consists of the remaining eight genera. However, it is possible that genus Caylusea does not group with Resedaceae as it contains the herbaceous members of the baramin and has some other slight morphological differences.

In an attempt to confirm this grouping, BLAST sequence data was used. However, very limited amounts of data were available for use, and most of what was available was chloroplast DNA (clDNA), rather than nuclear DNA.  The little available data demonstrate a strong genetic resemblance in a few genes, specifically the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit gene (rbcL), which demonstrated 99% similarity between Reseda, Forchammeria, Ochradenus, Caylusea, Sesamoides, Oligomeris, and Radonia. The same gene demonstrated 98% similarity between Borthwickia and Stixis.  These results would seem to indicate that Caylusea is part of Resedaceae and Borthwickia and Stixis are not discontinuous from each other. However, it is important to recognize that this is one gene. Whole genome sequences are necessary to make any kind of determination, particularly since the difference between Reseda and Borthwickia and Stixis was a mere three percent.  More work is needed to declare these discontinuous genetically.  However, using family Tovariaceae, a member of the same order as Resedaceae as an outgroup, the maturase K (matK) gene revealed no significant similarity between Tovariaceae and Resedaceae or Neothoreliaea.  This would seem to establish that at least Resedaceae is its own, independent baramin.  Whether Neothoreliaea is also an independent baramin or merely a subgrouping under Resedaceae requires hybridization data or further genetic testing.

resedaceae baramins

Figure 10:5 Resedaceae baramins

Tentatively, based purely on cognition, Resedaceae can be postulated to be two separate baramins.  Based on the genetic data available, we can be reasonably sure that the Resedaceae baramin is an independent baramin.  However, the same cannot be said for Neothoreliaea based on genetic data. I have opted, however, to tentatively break it off as its own baramin.  This decision was made based particularly on the broad-leafed, branching venation which characterizes the members of this postulated baramin, which is vastly different than the rest of the family Resedaceae.  Polyploidy might provide a possible explanation, but it has only been postulated by evolutionary phylogenists, not demonstrated, so, for the moment, Neotheoreliaea is split from Resedaceae[14].


 This baraminological study is the one duplication of previously existing baraminological work that I have performed as part of my research for this book. The Mustelids were all lumped together in Lightner’s Mammalian Ark Kinds article in 2012[15]. However, this grouping seemed to make little sense, as mentioned previously in this series.  Therefore, a full baraminological study was performed, using all available data to determine whether the mustelids do in fact group together in a single baramin, or if multiple baramins are needed.  Note that the red pandas and the skunks were formerly classified with the Mustelids but were removed recently and placed into separate families so they have been left out of this baraminological study.

Hybridization data is available within Mustelidae, but it is incomplete. Most of the hybridization is the expected within genera hybridization, such as that between Mustela lutreola and Mustela putorius[16] and between Martes zibellina and Martes martes[17]However, hybridization has been documented between Neovison vison and Mustela lutreola as well as between N. vison and M. purotius[18]. This is not that surprising considering that the Neovison vison was once classified in genera Mustela.

The otter subfamily of Lutrinae also exhibits the expected intrageneric hybridization, such as that reported between Lontra canadensis and Lontra longicaudis.[19]  However, there was one example of hybridization outside the genera reported as well, between Aonyx cinereus and Lutrogale perspicillata[20].  The hybridogram for the entirety of family Mustelidae is below.

hybridogram of mustelidae

Figure 10.6 Mustelidae Hybridogram


However, this hybridogram is not conclusive. It does demonstrate that some genera are connected, and, as expected, members of the same genera are documented to breed together in at least some instances.  Yet quite a few connections are missing. An ideal hybridogram would connect every species in a given baramin.  However, in this case, there is no connection even between the two subfamilies, Lutrinae and Mustelinae.  This forces us to proceed to the discontinuity matrix and the cognitum.


Question Yes? No?
Is there Scriptural discontinuity? (TCW, KPW) No
Is Hybridization data lacking? Yes (in part)
Does hybridization fail outside the group? (KPW) Yes (in a few instances)
Are there extinct organisms classified in this group? Yes
Do most members of the group possess unique structures or metabolic pathways for their group? (TCW) Yes in Lutrinae
Is the group more morphologically similar within the group than it is with things outside the group? (TCW) (KPW) Yes and No
Is there strong genetic discontinuity among many genes? (TCW) (KPW) (Note this information may be unavailable) Unknown Unknown
Does this group occupy a specialized environment? (TCW) (KPW) Yes (some)
Does this group have fossil evidence linking it to other groups? (KPW) (TCW) (Note, do not take evolutionists word on this)  



Does this group naturally appear discontinuous from other groups? Yes
Are there any members of the group with highly specialized traits? Yes

Figure 10:7 Mustelid Discontinuity Matrix

Based on this discontinuity matrix, we can determine that we are likely dealing with one or more distinct baramin.  Whether there is a single baramin or multiple baramin involved remains to be seen.  Cognitive groupings of the baramins based on gross anatomy, morphology, and behavior are possible.  The most obvious grouping is the subfamily Lutrinae, the otters.  Their sleek bodies, webbed feet, soft underfur covered by guard hairs, and ability to hold their breath are characteristic of the group.  All but the Sea Otter, Enhydra lutris, have a powerful, muscular tail as well. They tend to live in groups, have a playful, active personality, and spend much of their time in and around water.  There is no hybridization data connecting Lutrinae to the rest of the Mustelids, but there is some data connecting separate genera within Lutrinae.  Since polyploidy is unknown in Mustelidae, it would make sense that the disparate traits of Lutrinae would likely be best explained by a separately created baramin, rather than a common ancestor with the rest of the Mustelids.

Lutrinae aside, the remainder of the Mustelids are harder to cognitively classify.  Depending on what traits you look at, you could create numerous groupings. However, there are some fairly obvious groupings.

Based on a simple morphological cognition, most of the Mustelids easily group together.   The badgers, ferret badgers and wolverines are the only ones that could potentially be outliers.  The Martens, polecats, grisons, minks, and weasels all seem to fit very well together.  This is based on highly noticeable ears, very similar sleek long bodies, thick pelts, a generally omnivorous diet, a yearly molt in most species, generally terrestrial habitats, excluding some martens, and a lengthy reproductive cycle for a small animal, often a year or more, and generally solitary lifestyles. An interesting feature of this group’s reproduction is delayed implantation of the fetus. Once the egg and sperm fuse, the female has the ability to delay the implantation, and therefore development of the fertilized egg into her uterus for months. This is postulated to permit the kit to be born in good environmental conditions.

Badgers come in numerous forms but all seem to share some similar traits, discontinuous from the rest of the Mustelids.  Unlike the Mustelids, some species are very social often sharing their burrows with other badgers, and even other kinds such as rabbits and foxes with no issues[21].  They are stocky, with short tails and stubby bodies.  They have strong claws, designed to dig on the front paws. They are omnivores, readily eating meat and plant material.  The American badger has been observed to hunt in tandem with small groups of coyotes[22]. This further confirms the link between it and its European cousins willing to share burrows with foxes, which Lightner says are of the same baramin as coyotes[23]. Tentatively then, the badgers can be split from the remainder of the Mustellids and into their own small baramin, consisting of three genera.  Genus Mellivora, the infamous honey badger, much more strongly groups morphologically and behaviorally with the Mustelids and has been left in Mustelidae.

This leaves the wolverine, Gulo gulo, as a prickly problem to solve.  It is the largest member of the Mustelidae family, more bear than weasel, and has a vicious and ferocious reputation. It is known to attack and kill prey much larger than itself and even has driven larger predators from their kills.  They will eat just about anything they can kill or scavenge, including plant material on occasion, and are known to store food when they have the opportunity.  It has a short tail and specialized hydrophobic fur. Since it repels water, it repels frost, enabling the wolverine to handle the cold weather of its northern habitats.  Based on morphology, it seems the wolverine is its own created kind.

Genetic data for the wolverine seems to confirm some of this discontinuity, albeit tentatively.  The wolverine genome is available in shotgun pieces, as is part of the sable genome from genus Mustela. While the sable genome is significantly more complete, it’s a starting point.  Comparing shotgun sequences of similar length (no more than ten thousand base pairs difference and over one million base pairs in length) reveals an average similarity between the two of just over 79%. This is based on a study of 102 BLAST sequence comparisons. Since humans and chimps are approximately 84% similar based on genomic data and are discontinuous, we can conclude, based on this difference that the wolverine is its own distinct baramin, discontinuous from Mustelidae[24].

Genomic data for the badgers is absent.  However, pending genomic data, I am tentatively splitting the badgers from the remainder of the mustelids.  This decision is made based on morphology and behavioral data. Only four genera are placed in this baramin, none of which are large, and two of which are monospecific. This baramin is the least supported of the four, and could easily be folded into one of the other baramins, particularly Mustelidae, depending on genomic evidence and hybridization data.   Below is a chart mapping which genera from Mustelidae have been placed in which baramin.

mustelidae baramins

Table 10.7 Mustelidae Baramins


Baraminological studies are enjoyable, if sometimes laborious to perform. These few brief studies are merely meant to demonstrate the power of the enhanced cognitum concept in delineating baramins. Note that I have not needed to recourse to statistics to make these determinations.  Instead, a simple study of reproductive groupings and the cognitive similarities in form and function of creatures leads to intuitive groupings of creatures, just as God originally designed.






































[1] Lightner, 2011.

[2] Yoland Savriama, Mia Valtonen, Juhana Kammonen, Pasi Rastas, Olli-Pekka Smolander, Annina Lyyski, Teemu Hakkinen, Ian J. Corfe, Sylvain Gerber, Isaac Salazar-Ciudad, Lars Paulin, Liisa Holm, Ari Loytynoja, Petri Auvinen, and Jukka Jernvall. “Bracketing phenotypic limits of mammalian hybridization.” Royal Society Open Science Volume 5, No. 11. (2018)

[3] Sara J. Iverson, W. Don Bowen, Daryl J. Boness and Olav T. Oftedal. “The effect of Maternal Size and Milk Energy Outpout on pup growth in Grey Seals (Halichoerus grypus)” Physiological and Biochemical Zoology Volume 66, No. 1 (1993)

[4] Etsuko Katsumata, Tatsuya Hori, and Toshihiko Tsutsui “Contraceptive Effect of Proligestone on Spotted Seals and Crossbreeds of Spotted Seals and Harbor Seals.” Journal of Veterinary Medicine Volume 65, No. 5 (2003) Pages 619-653.

[5] Kit M. Kovacs, Christian Lydersen, Mike O. Hammill, Bradley N. White, Paul J. Wilson and Sobia Malik. “A Harp Seal x Hooded Seal Hybrid.” Marine Mammal Science Volume 13, No. 3 (1997) Pages 460-468.

[6] Harris et al, 2010.

[7] P.B. best, M.A. Meyer, and R.W. Weeks. “Interaction between a male elephant seal Mirounga leonine and Cape fur Seals Arctocephalus pusillus.South African Journal of Zoology Volume 16 (1981) Pages 59-66.

[8] C. A. Fyler, T.W. Reeder. A. Berta, G. Antonelis, A. Aguilar, and E. Androukaki. “Historical biogeography and phylogeny of monachine seals (Pinnipedia: Phocidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data.” Journal of Biogeography Volume 32 (2005) Pages 1267-1279.

[9] Tara Lynn Fulton and Curtis Strobeck. “Multiple markers and multiple individuals refine true seal phylogeny and bring molecues and morphology back in line.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B Volume 277 (2010) Pages 1065-1070.

[10] Accession numbers: NC_004029.2, AJ428576.2, NC_008422.1, AM181023.1


[11] From two Latin words, cete, meaning seal, and opimus meaning fat. Transliterated, it means fat seal.

[12] It should be noted that some of these sequences are partials, and that some of them may have been built using the same framework.

[13] Robert Barron “Hybridization dynamics of newly discovered parrotfish swarm in the Tropical Eastern Pacific.” (phD diss., Bowdoin College, 2017.)

[14] Santiago Martin-Bravo, Harald Meimberg, Modesto Luceno, Wolfgang Markl, Virginia Valcarcel, Christian Braunchler, Pablo Vargas, and Gunther Heubl. “Molecular synthesis and biogeography of Resedaceae based on ITS and trnL-F sequences.” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Volume 44 (2007) Pages 1105-1120.

[15] Lightner, 2012.

[16] M.T. Cabria, J.R. Michaux, B.J. Gomez-Moliner, D. Skumatov, T. Maran. P. Fournier, J. Lopez de Luzuriaga, and R. Zardoya.  “Bayesian analysis of hybridization and introgression between the endangered European mink (Mustela lutreola) and the polecat (Mustela putorius). Molecular Ecology Volume 20 (2011) Pages 1176-1190.

[17] O. N. Zhigileva, D.V. Politov, I.M. Golovacheva and S.V. Petrovicheva. “Genetic Variability of Sable Martes mzibellina L. Pine Marten M. martes L., and Their Hybrids in Western Siberia: Protein and DNA Polymorphism.” Russian Journal of Genetics Volume 50, No. 5 (2014) Pages 508-517.

[18] S. Harris and D.W. Yalden Mammals of the British Isles. Mammal Society: London, 2008.

[19] J. A. Davis “A classification of the otters.” In: Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the Otter Specialist Group (ed. by N. Duplaix). (1978) pp. 14-33. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Morges, Switzerland.

[20]R. Melisch and P. Foster-Turley “First record of hybridisation in otters (Lutrinae: Mammalia) between Smooth-coated otter Lutrogale perspicillata (Geoffroy 1826) and Asian small-clawed otter Aonyx cinerea (Illiger 1815). Zool Gart 66 (1996) Pages 284–288.


[21] R. Kowalczyk, B. Jedrzejewska, A. Zalewski, and W. Jedrzejeski. “Facilitative interactions between the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) , the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and the invasive racoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland.” Canadian Journal of Zoology Volume 86 (2008) Pages 1389-1396.

[22] Steven C. Minta, Kathryn A. Minta and Dale F. Lott. “Hunting Associations between Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and Coyotes (Canis latrans).” Journal of Mammalogy Volume 73, No. 4 (1992) Pages 814-820.

[23] Lightner, 2012

[24] Tompkins, 2018.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s