Quote:
Originally Posted by boof
this is something I am prepared to get heavily critised for mentioning but does keeping certain animals in sub species really matter. I understand the difference between a sumartran tiger and a siberian tiger are easily noticable but animals like chimps, and sun bears; which are already divided into to sub species in our region, does it matter.
|
i think so. there is a lot of work and understand yet to be extracted from animals. things we know little about. for example, almost all zoos hybridised orangutans for years. now they are considered seperate species.
we recently discovered gorillas were indeed two seperate species also and that it looks likely the same for clouded leopards.
what if say a type of endangered squirrel from borno and sumatra was being bred in captivity. we notice no difference between the two types so we interbreed them. then we discover that only the sumatran squirrels were immune to a certain parasite found in sumatra. becuse we mixed them with teh borneans they now cannot be reintroduced becuse the bornean squirrel genes cancelled out the immunity?
shame yes?
this is of course a totally hypothetical (and potentially ridiculous) scenario i just made up, but it kind illustrates the potential problems that can occour by indicriminately mixing.
my belief (and the policy of many zoos) has always been avoid hybridisation of subspecies
wherever possible - obviously its not so important for non-endangered species where the captive population is not considered so much of an "insurance".
obviously the size of the captive population plays an important role in detremining if its a rule worth adhereing to. for example in the case of sumatran rhino, hybridise away i say....better to have a hybrid captive population than none at all!!!
however, it makes me wonder why elephants in australia are still considered to be managed at the species level, when we clearly have a purebred founder population. shouldn't we make it policy to maintain this?
giraffes we had little choice. hopefully if laws change we will one day re-initiate a reversal process and switch via attrition to purebreds again. we shifted to hybridising gueeza colobus due to our two groups in the region being of different subspecies. this i question. choosing not to hybridise was obviously somthing that had finacial implications as it meant possible exporting of one race and importing more of the other. but should we probably have done it anyway?
there was already a large hybrid guereza population overseas, but a comparable sized population of the mt kenyan race also, of which the perth animals represented (the melbourne-based purebred
c.g. guereza are held by virtually no other zoos). now there may have been unknown factors (such as unavialability) but shouldn't we have chosen to contribute to the purebred mt kenyan lineage instead of the hybrid one?