1

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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,

5

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

6

(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

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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,

13

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.

14

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.

15

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

16

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).

17

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).

18

Figure 1. Map of Inner Mongolia, showing approximate locations of places mentioned in

the text, as well as adjacent countries (Mongolia) and Chinese provinces.

19

Figure 2. Locations of field surveys in November 2008 and March 2009. Argali were

observed (arrow) near Hada Shan, in Sunitezuo Banner.

Lang Shan

20

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.

21

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.

22

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

23

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.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

(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.

28

Figure A1. Legs of specimen 45491, taken by R.C. Andrews at “Kwei Hua Cheng”

(Hohhot area), October 22, 1919, showing stripes on metapodia.

29

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.

30

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

31

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.

32

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).

33

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.