Sure. I was wrong on the other species. It is a Cervus canadiensis x Cervus eldi hybrid, or at least it appears to be. It is in the paper entitled - "Evolution and phylogeny of old world deer" http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra deer.pdf
as I read the paper, it says that the Elaphurus lineage (which implies not just E. davidianus specifically, given that there are several extinct species of Elaphurus known) is of a theoretical introgressive hybrid origin in the late Pliocene (not Pleistocene but I grant that you noted you didn't have the reference to hand when posting). The species named in the paper, C. eldi and C. canadensis, would appear to be suggestions/guesses (depending on point of view) with no firm status as the "true" potential parents (especially in my view given the time period to which they refer).
Very true. I was going from memory and had a reread of it myself. Excellent paper to read through though.
Thanks for the link. A very interesting read. If Pere David's really is an introgressive hybrid as they suggest, then it might explain its peculiar appearance, described by the Chinese name Milu- 'four odd features'- as it certainly is a rather unlikely looking animal. I believe the inference is that the parent species were ancestral versions of Wapiti and Eld's deer, which existed in the Pleiocene era, as against the modern species. Evidence also appears to show that one species(eld's?)formed the matrilineal line so the crossing must always have been the males of one species with the females of the other. This is similar to present day Sika-where the stags are known to frequently hybridise with Red Deer females, but not the other way around. Also interesting that from this research it appears that the Sika and Wapiti groups maybe more closely related to each other, than either of them are to Red Deer as was the former thinking. Certainly the calls (including the 'triple whiste' rut challenge) of Sika are more similar to the bugling squeals of Wapiti than they are to the deeper roaring calls of Red.
I have no issue with Hybrids in the wild, obviously, that's what makes new spieces. However, I can't stand hybrids like Ligers, Tigons etc etc There's a Wolphin somewhere in Hawaii, I know it wasn't meant to happen, BUT the dolphin (the mother) didn't have many other options for mates. In human controlled areas (Zoo's, Aquaria and Safari Parks excluding reserves) encouraged Hybridisation should not be allowed. The animals are useless in all terms of the world. They have no conservational value, tend to be even MORE unpredictable and don't tend to have healthy lives.
I've seen Black/Mallard Duck hybrids in the wild. I've also seen both wild and captive Eastern Coyotes, and there's some debate whether or not they are hybrids between the Western coyote and the grey wolf.
Years ago, at a bad (now closed) small zoo in Payson (Arizona, USA) I saw an accidental mule deer / white-tailed deer cross. Accidental because the parents were rescue animals given to the zoo by Arizona Game & Fish who said they would not breed if housed together. What did it look like? Well, white-tailed deer and mule deer both look the same to me, so this looked the same as either parent if you ask me, so take your pick.
Melbourne Zoo have 1 or 2 hybrid orangutans, sumatran with borneon. The hybrid that I can't stand though is a domestic dog/dingo hybrid. some people deliberately breed the two whereas wild ones do so of their own accord. It is now believed that this has led to the disappearence of pure alpine dingoes in the wild. have a look at these hybrids..... http://www.zoochat.com/673/galah-x-cockatiel-30223/ http://www.zoochat.com/673/galah-x-sulpur-crested-cockatoo-30225/ http://www.zoochat.com/673/galah-x-long-billed-corella-30222/
The problem with this is that we cannot observe and research these creatures in the wild in order to establish what they do naturally. How can we simulate the wild in their enclosures? How do we know whether they are exhibiting normal, healthy behaviours?
A lot of hybrid Orangutans were produced in zoos during the 1960-1980 period. It was an understandable mistake at the time as they were only recognised as being subspecies, not full species then, and some individuals were difficult to distinguish accurately anyway before the era of scientific testing. Some of the hybrids later even bred themselves, either together or with pure animals. Its all been stopped now of course. All the remaining hybrids are prevented from breeding but being long-lived animals, some may still be in zoos for sometime to come.
Some hybrids that occur in nature between neighbouring species may indeed lead to new species. This is usually when a natural barrier cease to operate i.e. through long periods of drought leading to disappearance of major river or climatic changes. Now however, most such things are done by us, humans. Hybrid polar bear and grizzli is perhaps such a thing. polar bears, due to earlier disappearance of ice on the waters have to go farther south and grizzlies due to general shorter winters move to the north. Building a bridge over a large river or connecting island to the mainland over the sea may and will undoubtedly change the structure of species living on an island or on both sides of the river. Selective hunting may reduce the availability of correct sexual partners and lead to hybrids being produced like in case of cappercaillie and black grouse. Altogether, we have enough problems in the wild with conserving gene pool of species that area product of sometimes millions of years of evolution to care about hybrids in captivity. They shall be avoided at any cost and in qualified zoos we are trying to reduce them to zero over time. This is close to completion for orangutans (a few remaining hybrids in Europe are sterilized). It is also underway with hybrid giraffes. Unfortunately there is another stream of zoos that still find fit to produce ligeon or whatever else for the sake of attracting more stupid visitors. The media are also to blame very often being mislead by proud owners of hybrids and advertise them as "rare" or in some cases of coservation value. This bring us back to white, tabby or whatever tigers. They are all wortless hybrids.
These Tigers aren't Hybrids and or not Worthless. White, Snow, and Tabby have breed naturally in the wild a long time ago before deforestation and other building developments. There is just a color mutation that happened in the wild with the Bengal Tiger population. It's like when you get different colors of Lions, Servals, Pampas Cat, Marbled Cat, and many other feline species. I don't think however we in american zoos or more commonly known zoos should breed them, doe to there youths sicknesses. Tampa Zoo breeds White Tigers and yes there babies have recently survived but It really would be hard for the species if they keep trying and the youth keep getting weaker and weaker. Fossa dude
Actually, all white tigers are inbred from one population. If I remember this correctly, somebody wild-caught a white tiger and bred it with a normal, producing all normal cubs. This cub was then bred back with its father to produce some white cubs, and all white tigers in captivity descend from this. I also seem to remember seeing that some whites are hybrids between Bengal and Amur (P.t. tigris and P.t. altaica), but I can't remember where (and to be honest it might even be Wikipedia [I know ])
I have also just read on wiki that there was a small population of Golden Tabby's in the Wild. The last one was shot in India in the 20th century. I know it is wiki but can anyone else comment on this. I have been doing quite some research on feline mutation and have noticed that the color difference can make them larger or smaller. Fossa dude
The white tigers really were descendants from a single white bengal tiger but later on due to inevitable inbreeding they were hybrydised with all possible other tigers, mostly of coircus origin. Thus they lost a value of being Bengal white tigers and are all consdidered hybrids. Noo ne can change that now. Colour varities in the wild is one thing, tabby tigers another.
Actually I don't know anything for sure about the white lion. That mutation first appeared in Timbavati reserve. Probably due to inbreeding as that population had been separated from any other for quite some generations. In the absence of any studbook it is difficult to say whether someone produced hybrids later on but I think it is probable. Coming back to white tigers. It would be better if someone wouldn't quote here stupidities written in wikipedia. It is not a scientific information and is only used by some people to make excuses for keeping white or tabby hybrid tigers instead of trying to save really threatened ones like Sumatran or Malay. Of course there are some aberrant skins in museum collectioons but as we all know cats are quite variable in coloration and stripe patterns. Given current inbreeding of many isolated populations one may expect mutations to show up more often. With white tigers everything would be fine if someone would try to keep them going through beckcrossing with pure Bengal tigers. As there were none of proven origin available in Western world and financial incentive was very high they simply used what they had, treating those tigers just like experimental animals to carry just the white gene. All this is as far as only possible from breeding for conservation purposes. The history of white tigers is really well known and a number of publications had been written on the subject. But this requires an ability to find and read books, not just wikipedia.
ALL white tigers are thought to be descended from a father-daughter pairing. The gene is probably now extinct in the wild, so the only way to breed more is to inbreed. Outbreeding to orange tigers and then breeding the offspring back to the parents can help with the inbreeding problem, but white tigers are already severely inbred. The wide band gene that results in tabby tigers is a different mutation. It is due to inbreeding of the white tiger that this genetic mutation happens to have cropped up in the white tiger. The wide band gene is also thought to be extinct in the wild now. An orange, wide banded tiger will be a golden tabby. A white, wide banded tiger will be pure white. There has been a long history of hybridising Bengal and Amur tigers in zoos, and this does include the white tiger. Howevere, this was not done witht he intention of creating "freak" animals like the liger, it was done because people did not realise the importance of racial purity in the captive population. Cross-breeding subspecies is also a little different to cross-breeding 2 different species. Hybrid or "generic" tigers in zoos are now recognised to have far less value than purebred ones, so there is progress being made here. White lions do not have such a long history in zoos, and there is not currently a problem with inbreeding. Done responsibly, there is a possibility that white lions can be bred in zoos for a long while yet before we start to see serious problems, however I would still question the wisdom of deliberately breeding "freaks" that do not occur with such frequency in the wild. Whether a lion is white or yellow is not conservationally relevant and serves little educational purpose. I don't see the problem with people starting to learn about things on Wikipedia. Not everyone wants to know everything in enough depth to warrant seeking out and buying books. Surely it's better to read something on the internet than show no interest at all.
