According to Damm and Franco (2014) this phenotype is probably on average larger than the Alpine Chamois, while its horns are shorter and more compact.
Names
Armenian: Kovkasyan lernayts [2, 5]
Azeri: Köpkör, Köpkər, Kiopkæz, Gara paça, Garapacha [5] (Azerbaijani language)
English: Caucasian Chamois [5]
French: Chamois de Caucase [2, 5]
Georgian: shych’i [5]
German: Kaukasus-Gämse [3]; Kaukasusgams [5] – (editor’s note: hunter’s jargon)
Ossete: Archvi, Psiti [5] (Ossetian language / Eastern Iranian language)
Russian: –
Spanish: Rebeco caucásico [3] , Rebeco caucasico [5]
Other (putative) scientific names and synonyms:
Rupicapra tragus caucasica, Lydekker Ward’s Record of Big Game, ed. 6 p. 338, 1910. Type locality: Caucasus [5]
Taxonomy
Either considered as a subspecies of R. rupicapra (Alpine Chamois) or as a full species, under R. caucasica, by some authors. The justification for the separation of subspecies asiatica and caucasica has been questioned for a long time (Kumerloeve 1974; Heptner and Nasimovic 1966; Lovari and Scala 1984). [5]
Damm and Franco (2014) suggest that the separation into two geographical rather clearly separated phenotypes makes good conservation sense and opens management options.” [5]
Groves and Grubb (2011) believe that asiatica and caucasica are “almost certainly” synonyms. They further write: “On geographic grounds, it does seem probable that R. asiatica, the chamois of Turkey and the Caucasus, is distinct from others, but more evidence is needed.” [7]
Diploid chromosome number: 2n = 58 [5]
Distribution
The distribution of the Caucasian Chamois is not easily outlined, since in the first place the taxonomy is not clear (see above) and secondly if caucasica and anatolica are two different taxa it is not clear how to draw the distribution boundary.
In the past the Anatolian Chamois was confined to Anatolia (Turkey) and the Caucasus Chamois to the Greater AND Lesser Caucasus. But of course animals do neither bother about political borders nor about place names.
According to IUCN the subspecies R. r. caucasica is distributed in the Greater Caucasus and Lesser Caucasus, encompassing areas in southern Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the Greater Caucasus, the chamois sporadically inhabits all three highest ranges, and sometimes occurs at lower altitudes. While Anderwald et al. (2021) write, that the outer limits of its distribution in the Greater Caucasus have not changed much during the last 50 years, except for the westernmost part, where it is no longer present [1], “Shackleton already wrote in 1997 that the “range in the Greater Caucasus is beginning to fragment all over.” [9]
Its distribution in the Lesser Caucasus is said to be confined to the northern and western parts, Adjara-Imereti Mountain Range (Vereshchagin 1947, Gurielidze 2015). [1] (The Adjara-Imereti Mountain Range is tantamount to the Meskheti Range, see map, including Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park.)
On the other hand Damm and Franco (2014) confine the distribution area of the Caucasian Chamois to the Greater Caucasus exclusively. They assume the northernmost presence of the Anatolian Chamois in the Lesser Caucasus, west of Georgia’s Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. [5] Why they do not include Borjomi-Kharagauli is explained below.
The general question that arises is: Is it justified to allocate the Lesser Caucasus – or parts of it – to the distribution area of the Anatolian Chamois? From a geomorphological point of view there could be (or could have been) a better connectivity be given between the northeasternmost mountains in Turkey and the southwestern parts of the Lesser Caucasus in Georgia than between the Lesser Caucasus and the Greater Caucasus.
The Lesser Caucasus is geomorphologically connected to the Greater Caucasus by the Likhi (Surami) Range, which extends – not east, as Damm and Franco (2014) write, but – north from the town of Borjomi. Looking at the topography it can be assumed that the south of the Likhi Range is less favourable for chamois. An impression of the area is received at Surami Pass (with 949 m the lowest pass within the Likhi Range; about 40 km north of Borjomi) or at nearby Rikoti Pass (996 m). On the other hand a connectivity between Turkish Chamois distribution areas and the ones in the Lower Caucasus in Georgia could be given via Kaçkar and Karçal Mountains and the Meskheti Range.
Given that Anatolian Chamois and Caucasian Chamois are two different taxa, another interesting question arises: Is there a zone of intergrading or overlapping and where could it be? If the Caucasus Chamois is restricted to the Caucasus and the Anatolian Chamois occurs in the Western part of the Lesser Caucasus, than the connecting mountains within the Likhi Range could be a place to look for. But, as it seems, the Likhi Range is not (or not any more) a permanent distribution area of chamois. But if the Likhi Range has been used as a travel corridor by chamois, what would have been the main direction of travel? Since population numbers are greater in the Greater Caucasus it can be assumed that there was more travel to the south, from the Greater Caucasus to the Lesser Caucasus.
The next steady population south of the Likhi-corridor is the one at Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park. And here it is, where Damm and Franco (2014) assume the “zone of intergrading or overlapping” between asiatica and caucasica.
Could there be a second corridor for chamois between the Lower and the Greater Caucasus?Shackleton (1997) writes that chamois is also distributed within the Trialeti Range, which extends from Borjomi eastwards towards Tbilisi. Damm and Franco (2014) state that “it is unknown whether chamois are still present in the area east of Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park.” The northeastern end of the Trialeti Range could be or could have been a second stepping stone towards the Greater Caucasus. Today it has to be assumed that the northern outskirts of Tbilisi and highway E60 constitute a barrier for any animal movement. Northeast of Tbilisithe mountains continue with the Saguramo Range (including Tbilisi National Park and Mt. Saguramo, with1392 metres the highest mountain in the area).
A hint that chamois are or have been distributed further southeast along the Lesser Caucasus comes from some records of chamois in northern Armenia (Vereschagin 1959, in “Mammals of the Caucasus” p. 361-362), but apparently they became extinct in the 1930s. However, some Azeri researchers assume that chamois may still occur in the northern, forested part of the eastern Lesser Caucasus (Zazanashili 2011, pers. comm. to Damm and Franco).
Description
According to Damm and Franco (2014) this “phenotype is probably on average larger than the Alpine Chamois.”
According to Castelló (2016) the “probably on average” is gone: “slightly larger than the Alpine Chamois, with shorter and more compact horns“. [3]
head-body males: 125-135 cm [5, 16]
head-body females: c. 96 cm [5, 16]
tail: 8-10 cm [10]
shoulder height: 78-86 cm [5, 16]
weight: males 30-50 kg; females: 25-42 kg [5, 16]
It is interesting to note that the above figures correspond exactly to those of the Anatolian chamois.
scull
“larger cranial dimensions for caucasica than those of the Alpine subspecies”. [5 – quoting Koubek and Hrabe (1983)]
The nasal bones are lacking a distinct lachrymal process and a small persistent lachrymal fissure is present. In the West European races and in the Anatolian Chamois there is a small lachrymal process to the nasals, and the lachrymal fissure obliterates early. [5 – quoting Lydekker (1913)]
colouration / pelage
The Asia Minor Chamois (asiatica and caucasica are seen as one species here) is similar in body coloration to Alpine Chamois. [10]
winter pelage colour: chocolate brown [2, 5]
summer pelage colour: smooth tawny or reddish brown to fox red with a dark stripe running along the spine. [2, 5]
underparts: pale [2, 5]
legs: usually darker than body [2, 5]
head: facial mask reaches up to the back of the neck; coloration at the base of the horns is paler than in Carpathian Chamois. [2, 5] Orange patches appear on the light area of face above the nose and eyes, as well as behind the tip of the chin. [5]
throat patch: large, whitish above and orange below [5 – quoting Lydekker (1913)]
Horns
Horns are short and stout, rising nearly vertically and with only moderate divergence. [5 – quoting Lydekker (1913)], e.g. they are shorter and more compact than that of the Alpine Chamois, with a relatively narrow spread. [5]
horn length mean of hunted chamois (SCI and RW): 20,6 cm (n=71) [5]
horn length males: over 25,4 cm is rare cm [5]
female horns: slightly shorter, less hooked and thinner on average [5]
horn basal circumference (mean): 8,6 cm [5]
Habitat
The Caucasian Chamois tends to be a forest dweller, but occupies also alpine rocky areas as well as sub-alpine meadows. In the summer, they graze in forest and alpine areas, while in winter they remain in forests where there is less snow. More and more, the chamois has been forced into the alpine belt due to human development on the lower mountain slopes. [5]
They occur in the alpine zone in September-November and lowest elevations during December-May. [10]
The size and structure of the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra caucasica) population as well as the influence of anthropogenic factors on it were studied on the Caucasian Reserve (Western Caucasus). The negative effect of the snow cover, the thickness of which differed from the usual level, is shown. The effect of winters with thick snow cover is confirmed by the relation between these factors and the proportion of yearlings in the population one year after the winter. An increased death rate of animals in winters with a deep snow cover is observed in the case when their density exceeds the optimal one. [6]
Predators / Mortality
Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) and Lynx (Lynx lynx) are major predators. Chamois remains were found in 12 % of wolf droppings and 18 % of lynx scats. Domestic dogs can be major predators in some areas. [6]
Wolf predation does not affect the chamois population on the reserve. The number of wolves increases with an increase in the chamois population density to 15–20 ind./1000 ha. [6]
Food and feeding
Feed principally on forbs and graminoids during summer and on browse during winter. [10]
Breeding
rutting season: November into mid-December [5]
gestation: 165-175 days [10]
parturition: most kids are born in May-early June. A single offspring is usually born; twinning is rare. [10]
Activity pattern
Probably similar to Alpine Chamois. [10] In the Caucasus, they feed between 5:00 h and 11:00 h followed by a midday rest period. Foraging resumes at about 17 h. [10]
Status / population
The total population estimate for the entire Greater Caucasus is just over 9.000 individuals, and in general, the subspecies is still declining. [1]
The population size is approx. 6,000 mature individuals and there had been a decline by approx. 70% since the 1960-1970s, which is suspected to continue. The subspecies is therefore assessed as VU C1. [1]
In Russia, the total is ca. 5.500, with ca. 3.500 in the Western Greater Caucasus, up to 1.000 in the central part, and up to 1.000 in Chechnya and Dagestan (Reports on status of nature conservation in respective regions; Lukarevsky 2018; Yarovenko and Yarovenko 2018). Chamois numbers in Chechnya (mainly on the limestone Rocky Ridge; Lukarevsky 2018) probably amount to at least 300 animals, possibly more. Of all animals in Russia, ca. 1.200 occur in the Kavkazsky Biosphere Reserve (Trepet, 2018), 300 in Sochi NP (Semyonov and Voronin, 2018), ca. 200 in the Teberdinsky Biosphere Reserve (J. Tekeev, pers. comm.), and ca. 250 in the North Ossetinsky Nature Reserve, Tseysky Managed Nature Reserve and Alania National Park (Weinberg, 2018). [1]
The population history in Russia is as follows: 9.000 chamois on the northern slope in 1972, almost 6.000 of which inhabited Krasnodar Kray, and 1.200 in the Stavropol region (Ravkin, 1975). The population declined, and by the beginning of the 2000s, there were 1.500 in the Western Greater Caucasus (without Kavkazsky reserve), up to 1.300 in the Central Greater Caucasus, and more than 400 animals in Dagestan (Danilkin, 2005). In addition, there were about 1.000 Chamois in the Kavkazsky Biosphere Reserve (Trepet, 2014). [1]
In Georgia, combined aerial counts and ground censuses conducted during 2012-2014 produced a maximum number of 3.267 animals in the Greater Caucasus and 500-600 Chamois in Adjara in the Lesser Caucasus (Gurielidze 2015). This also represents a decline from an estimated 5.000 animals at the end of the 1980’s (Arabuli 1989). [1]
In Azerbaijan, only 600-800 individuals were left by the end of the 1990s compared to an estimate of 2.000-2.500 animals in the 1950-60s (Guliyev 2000). 341 animals were counted in the Zagatala Nature Reserve in 2015, and 315 in 2018; in Ilisu Nature Reserve, 24 and 18 animals, respectively, in the same years (A. Muradov, pers. comm.). No data are available from Shahdag National Park, the largest protected area in the Azerbaijan part of the Eastern Greater Caucasus. Chamois numbers probably decrease eastwards. [1]
Threats
The main threat for the subspecies is poaching. In some areas, competition with domestic livestock is a problem, and competition with tur (Capra caucasicaand Capra cylindricornis), Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), and Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus)is also possible. [1]
The scale of anthropogenic transformation of the Caucasian chamois population is shown based on the example of a local grouping of chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra caucasica Lydekker 1910) from the Lagonaki Plateau (northwestern Caucasus). It has been established that the theoretical area of the range of the local chamois grouping under study is 58000 ha and the fodder capacity is 45 individuals/1000 ha. The actual area of the range is currently approximately 20000 ha, thereby having decreased by 66% over the last 100 years. At the present time, the density of the grouping does not exceed five individuals/1000 ha; i.e., it is nine times lower than its theoretically possible value. No positive dynamics of the population is observed, despite the nature reserve status of this area over the past 23 years. It has been concluded that the metapopulation structure of chamois is gradually simplified and the prospect of the long-term conservation of the species in the northwestern Caucasus is under threat. [2]
The adverse impact of humans on the chamois population is manifested in the regions with motor roads. The chamois, as compared to the deer, suffers from poachers to a lesser degree because it inhabits inaccessible areas and its trophy value is low. [6]
Conservation
In Azerbaijan R. r. caucasicais listed in the Red Data Book of Azerbaijan as a “species whose numbers declined in the past and are still low” (Guliyev 2013c). [1]
In Georgia it is also listed in the Red List of Georgia as Endangered (EN/A2a) (Decree 2014). In both countries, these listings exclude any extractive use, but do not lead to restrictions on land use or development projects affecting the species and its habitat (S. Michel, pers. comm.). [1]
In the Soviet Union, the chamois was considered rare, but was not included in Red Data Books. Later, it was still not listed in the Red List of the Russian Federation. Now there are plans to include the species in the new version of the Red List of Russia. [1]
Hunting
Hunting is legal in the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan. It is presently not allowed in Georgia. In the Russian Federation, hunting of Caucasian chamois is permitted in Kabardin-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia and North Ossetia-Alania, but is is largely incidental and usually connected with tur hunts. The season runs from August through November. In other Russian territories this subspecies is listed in the regional Red Data Books. The annual legal harvest in only around 15 individuals (Lomanova 2010). [5]
Ecotourism
Most likely negligible. Only 40 observations are recorded on inaturalist for the entire Greater Caucasus (as of 2024-04-17).
Literature cited
[1] Anderwald, P., Ambarli, H., Avramov, S., Ciach, M., Corlatti, L., Farkas, A., Jovanovic, M., Papaioannou, H., Peters, W., Sarasa, M., Šprem, N., Weinberg, P. & Willisch, C. 2021. Rupicapra rupicapra (amended version of 2020 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T39255A195863093.https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T39255A195863093.en. Accessed on 23 January 2023.
[2] Bibina, K. V., Eskina, T. G., Trepet, Sthgey A., 2017: Anthropogenic Transformation and Prospects for Conservation of the Chamois Population (Rupicapra rupicapra caucasica) in the Northwestern Caucasus. Biology Bulletin 44(9):1166-1173
[3] Castelló, José R., 2016: Bovids of the World – Antelopes, Gazelles, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, and Relatives. Princeton University Press
[4] Couturier, Marcel A. J., 1938: Le Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra (L.). B. Arthaud (editor), Grenoble. En vente chez l’auteur.
[5] 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
[6] Eskina, T. G., Trepet, Sthgey A., 2013: The influence of environmental factors on the dynamics of the size and spatial structure of the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra caucasica) population on the Caucasian Reserve. Biology Bulletin 40(8)
[7] Groves, Colin and Grubb, Peter, 2011: Ungulate Taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press
[8] Lovari, S. and Scala, C., 1984: Revision of Rupicapra Genus: IV: Horn biometrics of Rupicapra rupicapra asiatica and its relevance to the taxonomic position of Rupicapra rupicapra caucasica. Z. f. Säugetierkunde, 49 (4): 246-253
[9] Shackleton, D. M (ed.) and the IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997: Wild Sheep and Goats and their Relatives. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 390 + vii pp
[10] Wilson, D. E. and Mittermeier, R. A. [eds], 2011: Handbook of the mammals of the world. Vol. 2. Hoofed mammals. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
