This depiction of a cross fox comes from The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America by John Bachman and John James Audubon.
The cross fox is a color phase of the red fox, which is found almost exclusively in the North American populations. In fact, I’ve never heard of a European cross fox, but if they exist, I’ve not heard of them.
I wouldn’t want to meet that fox in a dark alley – that’s one scary-looking critter.
check out this photo –
http://tinyurl.com/3xdmsy5
Amazing photo!
The various color phases and subspecies differences in the widespread NATIVE Red Fox population is just one of many evidences that yes, Red Foxes ARE native to North America, and the handful of Reds that the early English settlers transported and released from England WERE NOT the only source of Reds in the Eastern United States, a very popular but incorrect trivia item that apparently will always pop up because of people that do not look beyond the fact that some English foxes did get released, which doesn’t exclusively mean there were never any anywhere in North America to begin with–I could give lots more evidence if I get further provoked here……(this has always been an animal-“fact”-pet peeve of mine….)
It’s been proven that the majority of red foxes in the Eastern US and Southern Ontario are English derived, not native.
The subspecies that is English derived is fulva (number 6 on this map): http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/Spring%2005%20projects/RedFoxCasey/RedFox02.jpg
I live in West Virginia, cross foxes are exceedingly rare. Most are normal reds.
Well….I wouldn’t say it has been PROVEN(I actually saw this subspecies map before)– awhile back I came across a DNA study of North American Red Foxes that was rather emphatic that the English imports made very little impact on overall North American populations, which were quite widespread long before European settlement. There is no question they were present throughout the West and across the North( Early American Indian accounts and legends, Hudson’s Bay trapping records, Russian records of the North Pacific coast, early explorers’ accounts like Lewis and Clark that sent back 13 Red Fox skins from the Missouri River to the Pacific coast as part of their documenting native wildlife, etc)–the only real question is what their distribution in the East was. Bartram was already recording them on his travels in the 1700’s all across the Southeast. Perhaps there were pockets of heavily forested territory that had few or no Red Foxes, and perhaps one of these was where the avid English fox hunters felt the need to import some. But the idea that the entire East was one great, unbroken forest(not preferred Red Fox habitat, since they are more of an “edge” species) is erroneous–there were lots of quite large open prairie-like areas in the East, some natural, others regularly created by the Native Americans purposefully burning off huge areas to encourage various game animals.(see Lawson’s accounts) where many species that require edge areas thrived–bison, elk, wild turkey, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, whitetail deer, etc. etc.–PERFECT Red Fox habitat, I might add–it would be bizarre if they HADN’T been present in the East, as adaptable as they are, and the fact that they had already been present on this continent for thousands of years…….
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784493
There’s the study.
The only DNA study I’ve seen found that the California red fox is actually native.
Interesting article, thanks,–I’ve heard/read this “native Red Foxes were a Boreal species only before European introductions” but knowing Red Foxes, I find that hard to accept. Red Foxes are incredibly adaptable–anywhere they are introduced, even in areas that are not typical Red Fox habitat(like desert areas in Australia, for example–and these remote desert areas in Australia have ZERO human influenced characteristics, in some cases) they quickly spread to all possible available habitats. Now consider North America before European settlement–if there were Red Foxes on the continent(and there were, for thousands, perhaps millions of years, before, during, and after the Ice age, where land types and terrain were constantly changing over time), WHY in the name of common sense would they restrict themselves to mostly Boreal habitats alone, when those habitats are only marginal ones for Red Foxes to begin with(in other words, not ideal), and never spread to perfectly good habitats all over the country that they only coincidently did(if you believe that notion, which I don’t) when the Europeans arrived? Again, there was perfectly good Red Fox habitat in the North, South, East and West. Accounts of Eastern Indians indicate a knowledge and prescence of Red Foxes, and some archaeological digs have also found ancient Red Fox remains(supposedly distinguished from Gray Foxes). The DNA study I read I did find on the Internet awhile back, that concluded that the English imports were of little influence overall genetically in North America(which indeed makes sense if they were already here and widespread in distribution–the few foxes released by English fox hunters would quickly get swamped by the more numerous native genes). I try not to automatically accept the conclusions of a single study, but combined with all the other evidence, it seems purty blatant to me. What I think happened with the English fox hunters is one of several(or all) of these possibilities…..to be conntinued…..
There are very few cross foxes around here. Very few.
And there are “native red foxes”– very rare.
They are larger and are only black around their toes, not their whole legs.
Most cross foxes are like those native ones.
…..if one knows hunter mentality, specifically FOX hunters too, they constantly capture and release their favored game animal in the areas they hunt, It doesn’t mean those animals were nonexistent or absent or even rare, in some cases, but hunter mentality wants MORE for hunting, iregardless of subspecies differences, natural cycles and habitat or prey base. People in this country(U. S. A.) have been live trapping and transporting Red Foxes for decades–it used to be legal, and even though it no longer is, it still goes on! In fact, the spread of coyotes in the East, although other factors were involved, were facilitated in a large degree by fox hunters who had a notion that coyotes would be better for running their hounds to, for various(erroneous) reasons. I used to see adds in outdoor magazines when I was a kid, many years ago, advertising fox and coyote pups for hunters, by bulk! I have friends who illegally imported raccoons from Florida so there would be MORE to hunt, irregardless of the fact that there were raccoons all over the place where they lived! This is just a common hunter mentality, and I don’t doubt the early English fox hunter settlers had the same outlook. Also, our American Reds tend to be a bit smaller than foxes in England, especially one of those”ruddy great Scottish hill foxes!”, and I can just see those early sporting fellows, ethnocentric as they were, carrying on about the superiority of proper ENGLISH foxes who REALLY knew how to run before the hounds, until they convinced themselves they HAD to import some! And in truth, American Reds, with no experience running before hounds, may well have given poorer sport early on until they adapted to this new pressure(the Grays certainly were considered inferior to this purpose), and the impatient colonists just sent for some “proper English” foxes! But I have found no documents or anecdotal historical incidents to back this up–just a notion I have based on knowledge and experience with fox hunter mentality. Then one day, somebody who likes trivia, saw that the English imported Red Foxes at one time, erroneously concluded they did it because there were none here to begin with, and thinking themselves very clever for noticing, introduced the incorrect idea that Red Foxes were non-native, whereas a little further investigation would have shown them otherwise……