The scientific name refers to its ornate appearance. The Italians simply call it „the most beautiful chamois in the world“. Looking at the contrasting winter pelage and the impressive horns, one can only agree.
Names
English: Abruzzi Chamois [16], Southern Chamois [1]
French: Izard, Chamois des Abruzzes [1]
German: Abruzzen-Gämse [16], Apennin-Gämse
Italian: Camoscio appeninico, Camoscio d’Abruzzo [1, 2] – (Note that the Italian spelling for the Apennine Mountains is „Appennini“.)
Russian: Пиренейская серна [Wikipedia]
Spanish: Rebeco apenino, Rebeco de los abruzzos [1] Rebeco de los Abruzos [16], Gamuza de los Abruzzos [1] – (Note that the correct Spanish spelling for the Apennine Mountains is „Apeninos“, and for Abruzzo it is „Abruzos“)
Name change makes sense
The Italian form of the Southern Chamois was called the Abruzzo Chamois for a long time. It was previously restricted to the Abruzzo region. The subspecies has now been released into other mountain ranges of its original range in the Apennine Mountains. Accordingly, it makes sense to refer to it as the Apennine Chamois.
Other (putative) scientific names and synonyms
Rupicapra pyrenaica capella, Bonaparte 1844 [2]
Rupicapra tragus ornata, Lydekker 1901 [2]
Rupicapra pyrenaica faesula, Miller 1912 [2]
The subspecies name „ornata“ derives from the ornate winter coat. [2]
Taxonomy
Rupicapra ornata Neumann, 1899, Abruzzi Apennines, Italy [16]
Diploid chromosome number: 58 [2]
The Apennine Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata) has a low level of genetic variability, probably due to population bottlenecks and permanence of low numbers. It is more closely related to the Pyrenean Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica) [16] and the Cantabrian Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica parva), with which it forms a species, the Southern Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica).
Similar taxa
The three Southern Chamois subspecies – including the Apennine Chamois – are differentiated from the seven subspecies of Alpine Chamois by size, pelage pattern, cranial (scull) features, horns as well as different courtship behaviour (Lovari and Scala, 1980). [2]
According to skull length measurements the Apennine Chamois should be smaller than the Alpine Chamois. According to Wilson and Mittermeier (2011) the size of Apennine Chamois and Pyrenean Chamois is much alike [16]. Damm and Franco note (2014), that the Apennine Chamois is physically considerably larger than the closely related chamois from France and Spain, Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica and R. p. parva [2].
This is how the contradiction could have arisen: Damm and Franco probably referred to Lovari & Scala (1980), where it says on page 121: „On the other hand, R. p. pyrenaica has a much smaller body size, approximately 3/4 of that of R. p. ornata„. Later Lovari contradicts: „This is wrong and due to flawed information I received at that time (Lovari, pers. comm., 2024). The body mass of all three Southern Chamois subspecies is approximately the same (Lovari, 2023).
Similar taxa / pelage
Similar taxa / cranial features
While looking at the frontomaxillary suture not only its length is interesting, it is also its shape. While it always forms a „real suture“ – which means it is closed – in the three subspecies of the Southern Chamois, it is actually a fissure – which means it is open – in all subspecies of the Northern Chamois (Lovari and Scala, 1980 and pers. com.).
Similar taxa / horns
Scala & Lovari (1984) also evaluated skull and horn measurements, comparing sexually mature male Abruzzo Chamois (R. p. ornata) and Pyrenean Chamois (R. p. pyrenaica). They could show that these taxa also differ significantly in the length of the ethmoidal suture (frontomaxillary fontanelle), the frontal length of the horns, their height and anteroposterior and transverse basal diameters. In particular, the length of the ethmoidal suture discriminates the two taxa very clearly [5]: 16-21,6 mm in Apennine Chamois, 3-10 mm in Pyrenean Chamois [4]. Thus, the subspecific separation of R. p. ornata from R. p. pyrenaica appears to be fully justified morphometrically. [5]
While Apennine Chamois do have larger horns than the other two Southern Chamois subspecies, however, the skull size of the Apennine Chamois is smaller than the Pyrenean Chamois in almost all aspects. (Lovari and Scala 1980). [2]
Distribution / range
The Apennine Chamois is endemic to the Apennines in Central Italy [16].
It currently occurs in five small subpopulations [6]:
- Parco Nazionale d’Abruzzo, Lazio e Molise
- Parco Nazionale della Majella
- Parco Nazionale del Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga
- Parco Nationale Monte Sibillini
- Parco Regionale Sirente Velino
Earlier in the Holocene this subspecies ranged from the Sibillini Mountains (Marche Region, Italy) down to the Pollino Massif (Calabria Region, Italy) (Masini 1985, Masini and Lovari 1988). The altitudinal range of the species is 200–3,000 m. [6]
The populations at Majella and Gran Sasso derive from founder stocks from the Camosciara area in Abruzzo National Park (Apollonio 2010). The population at Monte Sibillini is also based on 30 translocated animals. [2]
Description
head-body: 105-120 cm [16]
shoulder height: 76-80 cm [16]
weight: males 23-35 kg; females 20-32 kg [16]
Colouration / pelage
The winter and summer pelage of the Apennine Chamois are strikingly different in appearance. The strong facial markings remain seasonally unchanged [2] – except during moult in spring.
summer coat: short-haired, rather uniform beige to reddish-brown [2]
winter coat: dark blackish-brown ground colour with a large creamy-white or light brown patch on each side of the rump and hindquarters. A large creamy-white patch runs on each side of the neck, shoulders and forequarters downward nearly to the brisket, separated along the side of the neck by a dark line extending down and forward from the base of each ear to join above the brisket. Winter guard hairs: 10 to 20 cm long, growing over a dense wooly underfur. [2]
face: white front to the face and muzzle, bordered on both sides by a broad black stripe running from the horn and ear base to the nostril [2]
chin-and throat patch: elongated, creamy-white [2] to orange; only in winter
stripe along spine: black [2]; in winter and summer coat
Horns
The horns of the Apennine Chamois are positioned closely together, and apparently incline backward to a greater degree than in the Alpine species (Lydekker 1913; Masini and Lovari 1988) [2] – see photo in section „similar species / subspecies“.
Some horn measurements of a very restricted sample size from Couturier (1938). None of the hunting data basis contain records of the Apennine Chamois [2]:
mean horn length: 25,4 cm
mean horn hight: 21,1 cm
mean horn span: 10,2 cm
longest horn in Coutriers collection: 31,5 cm (height: 25,3 cm)
Anteroposterior and transverse horn diameters indicate rather solid horns compared to other chamois species/subspecies. [2]
Are the horns of Apennine Chamois longer?
Despite the limited sample size, it appears that the Apennine Chamois has on average much larger horns than do the other two pyrenaica subspecies. Whether the average horn length of larger sample sizes approaches or surpasses that of the Northern Chamois (R. rupicapra ssp.) is astonishingly not known and needs further research. It appears that the subspecies was already scarce in the late 19th century before hunting data bases were built up. [2] Numbers of the Apennine Chamois are now increasing. There’s hope that in the nearby future it will be possible to collect more data.
Nevertheless have authors mentioned the „exceptional length“ of Apennine Chamois horns. [2] It has been explained that their horn length depends mainly on the growth they still have in the fourth year of life, whereas growth becomes negligible in other chamois populations from the third year on. From five years old onwards, growth is equal to what happens in other populations i. e. it is negligible (0.5-1 mm per year). The horn length of Apennine Chamois may be a genetic trait or it may depend on the calcareous nature of the Apennines (Chirchella et al. 2012) or both. [2] However this does not explain why other chamois subspecies from calcareous regions do not exhibit similar horns.
Table 1: Basic descriptive statistics for horns of Apennine Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata) and Pyrenean Chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica). Data in millimetres. Condensed from Lovari and Scala (1984)
| Apennine Chamois (n=18) | Pyrenean Chamois (n=13) | |
| 1*. length of horn |
min: 217,0 max: 314,0 mean: 283,83 |
min: 180,0 max: 222,0 mean: 202,23 |
| 2*. height of horn |
min: 131,59 max: 219,0 mean: 181,73 |
min: 122,0 max: 163,0 mean: 141,38 |
| 3*. anteroposterior diameter at base |
min: 29,2 max: 33,1 mean: 31,0 |
min: 21,5 max: 24,5 mean: 23,08 |
| 4*. transverse diameter at base |
min: 25,0 max: 31,2 mean: 27,41 |
min: 18,5 max: 23,5 mean: 21,54 |
| 5*. minimum distance between horn tops |
min: 62,7 max: 140,0 mean: 108,13 |
min: 62,0 max: 143,0 mean: 87,62 |
| 6. distance between horn tips |
min: 64,5 max: 135,5 mean: 99,56 |
min: 53,0 max: 130,0 mean: 85,46 |
| 7. minimum distance between horn bases |
min: 5,6 max: 12,4 mean: 8,99 |
min: 4,5 max: 12,0 mean: 7,62 |
*1 measured along curvature; *2 perpendicular line to the midfrontal suture from the central part of the line connecting the highest point of each horn); *3 measured from front to rear; *4 measured from left to right; *5 measured between highest points of each horn
It may be stated that horns provide a less satisfactory taxonomical differentiation than skull measurements, as the former are more readily subjected to epigenetic variation (Geist, 1966; Schaller 1977:23). [5]
Habitat
Apennine Chamois occur at elevations of 400 to 2.800 metres. They use alpine meadows during warm seasons but move to lower forested areas during the winter when snow accumulation limits access to forage in high meadows. Use of wind-protected, steep slopes prevail in winter. [16]
Food and feeding
The Apennine Chamois probably feeds on forbs and grass in the warm season and consumes a higher percentage of browse in the winter. [16]
Breeding
first mating (of a captive male): 2,5 years [7]
rutting season: November-December [16]
rutting behavior: When a male approaches a female, it stretches its neck upright; the throat patch presumably functions as an annunciator. Being approached a female often urinates in front of the male and then dodges with a submissive gesture. [7]
gestation: 165-175 days [16]
first lambing (captive animals): with 2-3 years [7]
lambing season: May-June [16]
young per birth: one [7]
Activity pattern
During summer, feeding occurs in early morning and afternoon. [16]
Movements, home ranges and social organisation
Usually Apennine Chamois move from a high-elevation summer range to a lower-elevation winter range. The size of home ranges is variable depending on population density, winter conditions, and forage availability and quality. Older males and females are dominant over younger individuals. Herd size is highly variable, largely dependent on population density. [16]
Status
Numbers of the Apennine chamois have probably been low for the last few centuries, only starting to increase in the 1920s as a result of increased protection. Numbers plummeted again to just several tens of individuals in a single population in the Abruzzo National Park during World War II (Lovari 1989). As a result of conservation actions, including reintroductions and conservation introductions, numbers have increased again. [6]
Total population size is currently estimated at no less than 3.000 individuals, in five separate populations (Mari and Lovari 2006; S. Lovari pers. comm. 2019), up from a total of c. 400 individuals in the late 1980s (Lovari 1989). Presently, the number of mature individuals does not exceed 2.000. [6]
Threats / conservation
Apennine Chamois may be vulnerable to many factors because their total number is small, locally decreasing, divided in only five populations, and genetic variability is very low (e.g. Lorenzini 2005, Corlatti et al. 2011). Space and food competition with livestock, especially domestic Caprinae, seem to have been the main limiting factors. Some poaching occurs, but does not seem to impair the viability of the populations. There are currently no problems with disease for the Italian subspecies. [6]
Presently, the major threat for Apennine Chamois seems to be the ongoing climatic change, which alters the structure, abundance and distribution of grasslands used by this ungulate, with effects on juvenile malnutrition in summer and an increase of winter mortality (Lovari et al. 2020). [6]
Locally, chamois are also outcompeted by Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), which has been recolonizing Apennine areas formerly used only by chamois (Lovari et al. 2014, Ferretti et al. 2015). Moreover, vegetation dynamics in secondary meadows of the Apennines have reduced the availability of nutritious pasture through the ongoing spread of poorly palatable plants (Corazza et al. 2016).
The subspecies is strictly protected under national and international legislation – it is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention, Annex II* and Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, Appendix II of CITES, and as a “specially protected species” under Italian hunting law. [6]
Proposed conservation measures include the following: 1) consider conservation introductions to other protected areas in the central Apennines, once their suitability has been adequately assessed. 2) When selecting individuals for transplants and captive breeding, consider the low genetic variability of this subspecies. This was most likely a result of living at low density for a long time and of population bottlenecks occurring at World Wars I and II. 3) Keep detailed breeding records, genetic profiles, and develop a studbook, for each of the captive breeding populations. 4) Avoid releasing Alpine Chamois into areas of potential (re)introduction of Apennine Chamois as, if such an action was carried out, it would prevent the subsequent release of the latter species (Shackleton 1997). [6]
Ecotourism
The Apennine Chamois certainly contributes to the nature experience in the parks, where the subspecies is present. Some encounters have been mentioned in trip reports of wildlife watchers, i. g. mammalwatching.com.
Stress through harassment by tourists has been documented to be a factor. [16] On the other hand Patterson (1988) showed that flight distances are least in the area with most visitors and are longest in the most remote area. He assumes that continued „benign“ exposure to people encourages further habituation of the animals and so reduce the effects of visitors on them. [9]
Literature cited
[0] Bürglin, Ralf, 2021: Do you recognise your Southern Chamois? Skull-length-eyeball-width ratios and tail characteristics as an approach to identifying Rupicapera pyrenaica subspecies. Poster – 8th World Conference on Mountain Ungulates WCMU 2022, Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso.
[1] Castelló, José R., 2016: Bovids of the World – Antelopes, Gazelles, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, and Relatives. Princeton University Press
[2] Damm, Gerhard R. and Franco, Nicolás, 2014: The CIC Caprinae Atlas of the World – CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, Budakeszi, Hungary in cooperation with Rowland Ward Publications RSA (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg, South Africa
[3] Geist, Valerius, 1999: Deer of the World – Their evolution, behaviour and ecology. Swan Hill Press
[4] Groves, Colin and Grubb, Peter, 2011: Ungulate Taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press
[5b] Lovari, Sandro and Scala, Claudio, 1980: Revision of Rupicapra Genus. I. A statistical re-evaluation of Couturier’s data on the morphometry of six chamois subspecies. Bolletino di zoologia, 47:1-2, 113-124
[5] Lovari, Sandro and Scala, Claudio, 1984: Revision of Rupicapra Genus. II. A skull and horn statistical comparison of Rupicapra rupicapra ornata and R. rupicapra pyrenaica chamois, Bolletino di zoologia, 51:3-4, 285-294
[5c] Lovari, Sandro, 2023: Apennine chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata) NEUMANN, 1899. Pages 11-15, In: Apennine chamois project. CIC Italian delegation, Milano]
[6] Herrero, J., Lovari, S., Nores, C. & Toigo, C. 2024. Rupicapra pyrenaica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2024: e.T19771A223797365. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2024-2.RLTS.T19771A223797365.en. Accessed on 14 April 2025.
[7] Matschei, Christian, 2012: Böcke, Takine & Moschusochsen. Filander Verlag
[9] Patterson, I., 1988: Responses of Apennine chamois to human disturbance. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 53 (1988), 245-252. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg und Berlin.
[16] Wilson, D. E. and Mittermeier, R. A. [eds], 2011: Handbook of the mammals of the world. Vol. 2. Hoofed mammals. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
