Evidence to Support the Sunda Tiger Classification - Have you seen this before in a Sumatran Tiger?

When I visited Hamilton Zoo (New Zealand) recently, I was surprised to see something on one of the female Sumatran tigers, Sali, that I hadn’t noticed before. She had spots between her stripes. There is a picture of her here (note: the photo is incorrectly captioned as the male tiger Oz), which shows the spots above her hind quarters:

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/09/21/Sumatran-tiger-that-attacked-zookeeper-will-not-be-euthanized/2801442836531/

Sali’s daughter, Kirana, also has these spots but I have not seen them on a Sumatran tiger before.

A quick internet search hasn’t turned up any other Sumatran tigers with spots, so I’m curious to see if anyone else can name an example of a tiger they’ve seen in captivity with spots.

The reason for my curiosity on the matter is this page, which notes the now extinct Balinese tiger had spots between its stripes:

http://extinct-animals-facts.com/Recently-Extinct-Animal-Facts/Bali-Tiger-Facts.shtml

It has recently been suggested that Sumatran tigers, along with the extinct Balinese and Javan tigers, should be reclassified as the same species – the Sunda tiger. Do Hamilton Zoo’s tigers support this re-classification?

 

Leanne & Larry at San Francisco Zoo are both Sumatran tigers, and both have spots between their stripes in varying degrees. I think they're even more pronounced on their offspring, Jillian.

I should have a picture available, but I'm having a hard time finding a good one.

 

I've noticed it quite a few times in photos, but not in the few live individuals I've seen. Found a few examples on Google (forgive the weird link format, only way I can share them via iPhone):

Google Image Result for https://louisvillezoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hdr_tiger_sumatran_01.png
Google Image Result for https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/shutterstock_600869816.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1
Google Image Result for https://cmkt-image-prd.global.ssl.fastly.net/0.1.0/ps/3549494/910/658/m1/fpnw/wm0/19657333_218988905290527_3939912408721922605_n-.jpg?1511294883&s=ff23ef75f01cc6b23655e10202769df5

For comparison, mounted Javan tigers:
Google Image Result for http://andysworld.net/images/Tiger_Analysis/Javan%20Tiger/Javan%20Tiger.jpg
Google Image Result for http://andysworld.net/images/Tiger_Analysis/Javan%20Tiger/Javan%20Tiger.jpg

And Bali tigers:
Redirect Notice
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Bali_Tiger_Ringling_Bros_1914.jpg (this being a circus animal it's hard to say if it was a pure Bali)

They all definitely share the 'spots', which seem to be concentrated mostly around the haunches in all three eco types.

While I've been on the fence about lumping all the mainland tigers into one subspecies I do think a good case can be made for lumping the Sunda tigers together. Photos of the two extinct populations can look identical to Sumatrans, and the three very close islands (and much of the Sunda Shelf in general) were connected not all that long ago.

 

Yeah, I second this. The spots are definitely concentrated in the haunch reason. I've also noticed them down the hind legs as well.

I strongly disagree about lumping the mainland tigers into one subspecies, but I would be open to the Sunda tigers together.

 

Thanks for your replies @Buldeo and @Okapipako. That's an excellent example of a Sumatran tiger with spots in your pic @Okapipako. Is it just me or does the Balinese tiger look smaller/more slender in build than the average Sumatran tiger? The Javan tiger also looked different, but not as much.

Personally I'm not a fan of the tiger sub species being reclassified into just two.

 

If the Balinese tiger (extinct), Javan tiger (extinct) and Sumatran tiger are reclassified as the Sunda tiger, there is ultimately no harm done. Zoos will continue breeding purebred Sumatran tigers, except they will be known as Sunda tigers. If decades from now, we return to the 9 sub species theory, they can be called Sumatran tigers again and we'll all be merry and bright.

If the Caspian tiger (extinct) and the 5 other tiger species are reclassified as Continental/Mainland tigers and bred indiscriminately with each other, there will be no going back. If the 9 sub species theory is revived, zoos will be left with a bunch of hybrids.

 

First part of your note is true and they will be bred further as an apart taxon.
For the second part of your note I think you could be ( hopefully ) wrong. Zoos won't start now to mix all the other former sub-species burt keep them seperated as apart local tiger-types and if the classification is "reset" in a number of years, there still will be pure Malayans, Amurs and other "sub"-species - at least in zoos.

 

I hope I'm wrong too @vogelcommando. Surely it's just common sense to treat them as separate sub species until any reclassification has been widely acknowledged over a long period of time.

It's bizzare to think of tigers previously regarded as hybrids, being reclassified as purebred Mainland tigers, as long as they don't have any Sumatran tiger ancestry.