HYBRIDS OF WHITE-TAILED AND MULE DEER IN WESTERN WYOMING

3 Pages·1992·1.3 MB·English

by  Charles E Key

Great Basin Naturalist52(3).pp.290-292
HYBRIDS OF WHITE-TAILED AND MULE DEER IN WESTERN WYOMING
Cliarles E. Kr-avh-'2and Edward Boe
Ki't/ uonis: tcliitc-tiiilcd ihrr. iniilc deer. Odocoileus \ir(!;inianus, Odocoileus hfinionus. interspecific hijhridiziition.
Wi/oiniiif:^.
Though .successful niatiugs ofcaptive mule obsened and photographed three female
deer {Odocoileus Jieinionus) and white-tailed h\'brid deerwest of LaBarge, VWoming, in the
deer(O. virg^inianus)havefrequentlybeendoc- Green Ri\er Basin. The h\brids were always
umented (Cowan 1962, Whitehead 1972, Day associated with female mule deer and fed with
1980,Wishart 1980),interspecifichvhiidization themuledeerinsagel)nish(Aticniisaspp.)hab-
ill most natural populations appears to be rare. itats. The hybrids were often seenwithin a rel-
Kramer (1973) reported only 10 hybrids out of atively short distance (0.5 km) ofwillow {Salix
()\cr 17,000deerkilledin Nebraska,2outof983 spp.) communitiesandhayfieldsalongLaBarge
deer from Kansas, and onlv 6 out of several Creek, but we never obsened the hvbrids
thousandobsenations in Alberta. In34yearsof kevingonriparianareas,aswhitetailscommonlv
fieldwoi-k in Arizona, Knipe (1977) obseived do in the aridWest (Woodetal. 1989). Instead,
onlv8 definite hybrids. theInbridswinteredinopensagebrushwiththe
In recent years protein electrophoresis of muledeer,wheretherewaslittlehidino;orther-
serum albumin and restrictive endonuclease mal cover, even though temperatures of-45 C
anaKsisof mitochonchial deoxyribonucleicacid orknver are common in this partofWyoming.
lia\(' been uscnl to characterize gene flow Duringthewinterandearlyspringof1991-
between mule and white-tailed deer popula- 92,we madeadditionalobsenationsandphoto-
tions(McCKmontetal. 1982). Basedonprotein graphsof hvbriddeerinthe Green River Basin.
elctlioplioresis of 201 deer from 31 localities, Ontwoseparateoccasionswesawamaleh\brid
maiiiK in tlie .southwestern states, Derr (1991) 8 km south of Big Piney, Wvoming, in an alfalfa
lound little exidence of nuclear gene introffres- {Medicago sativa) fieldwith approximateK- 100
sionbetween thetwodeerspecies. Croninetal. mule deerofboth sexes. We also made numer-
DNA
(1988) reported that mitochondrial and ous obsenations ofhybrids alongthe section of
.serumalbuminappearedtobedistinctbetween LaBarge Creekwherewe obsen'edhvbrids the
umle deer and white-tailed deer throughout prexions xear. But in 1991-92 we saw more
.Montana, suggesting that interspecihc gene hxbrids including at least two males, four
flow was ver\' low. This was in contrast to data females, and three fawnis. The three hxbiid
from Texas that showed a 5.6% hybridization fawnisappearedtofollowasingle muledeerdoe
rate for 319 deer examined (Carr et al. 1986, and may ha\e been triplets. These deer were
Stiibbleneld ct al. 1986) and Alberta where usually obseived with mule deer and occupied
Inbridization reportetlK is increasing (Lingk^ primarih' nonriparian areas as the lu'brids had
1989). the prexious \ear.
Though whitetail-nmle deer hybrids ha\e Basedonpublishedcharacteristicsandmea-
been obsened in eastern Wyoming (Oceanak surements ((^owan 1962, Oceanak 1978, Dav
1978), they hav-e not been prexiousK reported 1980, Wishart 1980), thedeerthatweobsened
from western Wyoming. On .several occasions appeared to be first-generation Inbrids. The
during the winter and spring of 1990-91 we leuiith of the ridee on tlieir metatarsal glands
,l>|)artiiieiUofFislK-ric-saiKl\\'jkllirc.UlaliStateL.'TiiMMsitwl.imaij,i:ialiS1322
"Presentadclrcs.s:InstituteofPoliticalKcoiioniv.Utah
Presentailelress:Box26.LaBarge.W'yoniinjiS.3I2;3.
290
.
1992J Notes 291
wasiiitennediatebetweenhpicalwliitetailsand 60-100kmtothewest,someresideyear-longin
hpical mule deer, and the eolorof the metatar- riparian areason LaBargeCreekandthe(^reen
saltuftwasprimaiiK wliite. Theirtailsappeared River. Moreover, bv the November breeding
to he slifj;htl\ l()ni:;er than normal whitetail tails season thousands of migrating mule ck'er have
and were i)ro\\n mer<ringto black on thedorsal already returned to their lower-elevation
side and pure white on the underside. When v\intering areas and then connnonlv cross the
frightened, the h\brids used a bounding gait (xreen Rivertowinter in the breaks to the east.
withorwithouttail-flaggingt\picalofwhitetails. So large numbers of nmle deer occupy tvpical
.\s reported b\- Lingle (1989), the Inbrids did whitetail ri])arian habitats during the nit. \\ith
notappeartostottbutusedlocomotionpatterns the markedchffenMicein theirrespectivepopu-
intermediate between mule and white-tailed lations, it may be difhcnlt forwhite-tailed deer
deer.OnalloccasionsfemaleInlands\\'eredom- to find appropriate mates during the brecnling
inatedb\'femalemuledeerthe\ associatedwith season. This may lead to a high hxbridization
and were frecjuentK displaced from feeding rate relative to the whitetail population as
sites h\ mule deer. appears to be the case in western Washington,
Kramer (1973:298) po.stulated that h\brid- where a remnant population of (^olumbian
izationbetweenmuleandwhite-taileddeermax white-taileddeer(O. v. Icuciinis) issurrounded
bemorefrequentwherewhitetailsoccm-in\eiA b\ annichlargerpopulationofblack-taileddeer
small numbers. This ma\' be true in western (O. h. columhiatius) and where 18% of the
WAoming. PriortoEuropeansettlement,white- whitetails tested possessed blacktail alleles at
tails were apparentK" distributed throughout two of three diagnostic loci ((iavin and Nhiv
\\\omin£[, but unrestricted \ear-lon2 meat 1988).
hunting eliminated them from mo.st ofwestern
\\\omingb\' the tin"n ofthe centur\'. Acknowledgments
cWuphi\tietnigiilfsorhnai\eerkb'eoecncuipnitehdeaprreoacsesisnowfesetitehrenrWreyooc-- We tliank \. (icist and an anoinnions
ming or rebuildingsexerelydepressed popuhxtions reviewer for helpful comments.
foratleast30\ears (HarrvHarjii,\\\omingGame
and Fish Department, personal communication,
LiTER.\TURE Cited
1991).
Basedonhuntersunxnsconducti'dthroughthe C:\HK. S. .VI., ,S. W. Bai,i,i\(;kh, J. N. Dkkh 1„ 11,
niciil or o\er the telephone b\' the WVoming Blaxkensinr andJ. W. BicKll.v.vi 1986. Mitochon-
GameandFish Department,85whitetailswere drial 13N.'\analysisofh\bridi/.ationbetweensxnipatric
killed in all ofwestern Wyomingin 1974, while wcheietdei-ntgasiloefdthdeeeNrataionndalmuAcleaddeenenroifnSwceisetncTeeSx3a:s.95P7r6o--
159 were killed in 1989 (Harju 1991, personal 95S0.
conniiunication). Since few ofthese deerwere Chomn, M. a., E. R. \vsi; and D. C. CwiKHox 19SS.
kcnheocwkiendgIhnotwramianne\d'odbeseerrvreerpso,rttheedrbe\-ishnuontwearvsoasf tGmaeeinnleettdi5d2ce:er3re2l(ai)nt-i3oM2noSsn.htiapsnab.et|woeurennaInuoifleWidledelirfeanMdawnhaigtee--
whitetailswere actuallyhybrids. CowAN I. McT. 1962. Ihbridi/atioubetweentheblack-tail
bi contrast, the Wvoming Range nude deer deerandthewhite-taildeer|ournalof.Mamnialogx43:
herd that winters betvyeen Big Pine\' and D\V 5C:;5.91.54191S(). (Characteristicsand measurementsof"cap-
Fontenelle Resenoir, including LaBarge tiveliybriddeerin.'\rizona.SouthwestcnNaturalist25:
Creek, numbered approximately 20,000 ani- 434-43S.
mals after the severe winter of 1983-84. Since Dl nii j. N 1991 (icnctic interactions between white-
then,aseriesofse\enmildwinterscoupledwith Sttaaitleesd.aJnoudrnmaluloefWdieldelrifienMtahneagseomutehnwtes5t5e:r2n2.5U-n2.i3t7e.d
limiteddoehanestallowedthisherdtoincrease (;a\I\, T a., and B. M\V 19S8. Taxonomic status and
to 55,000 in 1990 (Harju 1991, personal com- genetic purity of Columbian white-tailed deer, an
munication). In fi\e\earsofol)ser\ationwesaw endangered subspecies, [ounial ofWikUile .Manage-
o\er 40,000 deer in the Big Pine\-LaBarge KmI'Km.enT.t1.5927:7,1-T10h.e Arizonawhitetail dvvr. .ArizonaCJanie
Creek area, and all but a few were nnde deer. andFish DepartmentSpecial l^eport6. lOSpp.
Onewasatvpical malewhitetail.andtheothers KnWIKR, .A. 197.3. Interspecificbehaxioranddispersionof
were the Inbrids described abo\e. twosvmpatric deerspecies. |oinnal of Wildlife .Miui-
agenient37:2S.S-.300.
Though most of these nuile deersvmimerin LiNCLE,S. 19S9.LimbcoordinationandbocKconfiguration
the Wyoming and Salt River mountain ranges in die fast gaits of white-tailed deer, mule deer and
292 Great Basin Naturalist [X'olume 52
tlieir hybrids: adaptix'c significant and nuuiagenient \\iIITEIIEAD,C.J.,Jk 1972.Apreliminaryreportonwhite-
implications. Unpnblishccl masters thesis, University tailed and black-tailed deercross-breeding studies in
ofCalgar);Calgan,-,Alberta,Canada.289pp. Tennessee. Proceedings ofthe Annual Conferenceo*"
McCly.mont,'R. A., M. Fenton, and J. R. Thompson SoutheasternAssociationofGameandFish Commis-
1982. Identificationofcer\idtissuesandhybridization sions25:65-69.
bvsenimalbumin.JournalofWildlifeManagement46: WisilAKT, W. D. 1980. Ihbrids ofwhite-tailed and mule
54()_544. deerinAlberta.JournalofMammalog\-61:716-720.
Ot:E.-\N.\K. C. 1978. Two deer in one. WXoming W'ildliie Wood.A.K., R.J. Mackie,andK. L. Hamlin 1989.Ecol-
42(3):24-27. ogv'of sympatricpopulationsofmuledeerandwhite-
Stubblefield. S. S.. R. J. Wahken and B. R. Mlmiiv tailed deer in a prairie en\ironment. Montana
1986. Ihbridi/ation offree-rimging white-tailed and DepartmentofFish,Wildlife,andParks, Helena.97pp.
mule deer inTexiis. Journal ofWildlife Management
.5():688-690. Received17April1991
Accepted17June1992