It's a weird question, but does anyone know how to tell the different lion subspecies? I mostly ask because I know zoos don't specify what type of lions they have beyond African or Asiatic. Typically they do with tigers (amur, sumatran, etc.), yet this isn't done with lions. It sounds weird, but I can't help but wonder is this a transvaal, masai, etc that I'm looking at? Could this be possible that tiger subspecies are easier to tell than lions, and that's why zoos tend to specify tigers rather than just saying tiger? Plus for lion SSPs, wouldn't it be important to know the type of lion like they do with tigers so they won't create hybrids? Like I said, weird question, but I've just been wondering for a while.
I expect much (or most) of the reason for that is that very few captive lions are of known heritage. Most can be suspected as "African" due to anatomical differences. Also, the IUCN doesn't currently recognise any subspecies apart from P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita, corresponding to northern Africa and Asia for leo and eastern and southern Africa for melanochaita. Lion subspecies don't seem to be a conservation concern, despite separation of at least the Asian lion in captivity.
Transvaal is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that zoos use. Belfast says they have Barbary Lions, but I'm not so sure if they are the real deal. (The last one was shot in Morocco in 1942)
A lot of zoos claim to have Barbary lions, which even if it was a legit subspecies, is extinct. I generally don't trust any zoo that claims to have a subspecies, beyond Asian lions vs African. The Cat Specialist Group revised all cat taxonomy a few years ago and determined there's two ssp: P. l. leo, which includes Asian and west/north african cats, and P. l. melanochaita for east and south African animals. The IUCN has only used 2 ssp for decades, though they went with P. l. leo for African and P. l. persica for Asian. Tiger species are a bit easier to tell apart because of their range differences - an animal in Siberia has needs that are quite different from one on the southeast Asian islands - and with some of their populations being isolated. There's also a lot of incorrect labeling with them, as well, though.
As Mo Hassan and TinoPup say, there likely aren't that many lion subspecies. This is debated and not as clear as tiger subspecies (though even that is debated with some suggesting there are only two tigers: mainland and Sunda islands). In the USA, most lions in the SSP are now descended from recent imports from South Africa, which would make them P.l. krugeri if you split South African as separate. In non-AZA zoos in USA the lineage is less clear. One thing that is clear, though, is that there are no pure blooded Asian lions in USA.
I am not sure if the research on Panthera leo ssp. was all that thorough. I find that to restrict lion ssp. to basically 2 subspecies a bit over the top really. Any thorough study would require 20+ samples from each subpopulation or previously described ssp. and include both extensive morphometrics and genetics for comparisons. I remain sceptical and as yet to be convinced this thoroughness in study has ever been conducted. I would be very interested to see the studies on which the above might be based! I know previously there was reference to - the not unlike/comparable - leopard Panthera pardus to an early genetics study that was then copied over and over as a reference for the hypothesis that there would actually only be 6-10 leopard subspecies. I found that particularly "sloppy", yet we seem to be in parrot-to-parrot talking country there.
I am not sure if this is still the case, but when I visited Le Parc Des Felins several years ago they had four different lion enclosures with four "types" of lions. These were: South African white lion, East African lion, Angolan lion, Asiatic lion. The Angolan lions (I think, though it may have been the East African) had three elderly male lions with the biggest manes (including belly) I have seen. Two of them are pictured in the gallery here: the big boys - ZooChat
Well, I have the impression that in sometime in Europe there were a pressure on breeding Panthera leo bleyenberghi - Angolan/Katanga lion. It was being described as a subspecies with a very pale mane around the face. I think the captive population of this type of lion is quite inbred now (in Wrocław the "breeding group" is siblings from one zoo) and in some European zoos you can find pairs like Angolan x Kalahari or just Angolan x "Lion-just-a-lion", so I don't know if there's still a stress to breed pure "Angolan lions". I could say that bleyenberghi looks different than other African lions - but I cannot say if it's a feature of all Angolan lions in the world or just of a small captive population. There are no 100% pure Barbary lions - this population is now extinct as it was mentioned. It's supposed to be close related to Asiatic lion however personally I would say these "Barbary lions" looks more like African to me, I don't know if it is caused by hybridization while it is said that level of hybridization is very low in that Barbary line. Anyway, subspecies or not - I would like to consider if it is necessary to look only at subspecies. Some populations are unique and have their own phenotype which evolves for some reasons and which deserves protection in my opinion. Ok, we can say that Bengal tiger and Indochinese tiger and Amur tiger are the same subspecies but they all are different and I think all the forms need their own breeding programmes to save their uniqueness.
Forgive me for highlighting again: I speaking specifically of viable (combined) genetic and morphometrics studies of samples of known wild populations across Africa (including for good measure the Asiatic lions of Gir) and set those versus museum specimens of known locations and zoos with founder stock that can be traced to wild conspecifics (no zoo mix / hybridisation). Have any such studies been accomplished and/or conducted (or being done as we speak)?
Recent large-scale genetic and morphometric analyses both support a two subspecies classification with N Africa/Asia forming one group and E Africa/S Africa forming the other. Genetics: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/10/22/814103.full.pdf Morphometrics: https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00694.x In terms of variation, the most noticeable characteristic is the mane development, but that's been shown to be largely a function of climate and individual condition (nutrition, testosterone level, etc.), rather than being strongly determined by genetic differences among populations. (see On the Nature and Significance of Variability in Lions ( Panthera leo ))
well first of all the definition of both sub and full species is a topic on its own a man made construct and there for relative hybrids acpur in wild as well and u would not stop speaking of them any different i am not an expert and have not done any research when i saw documentary some time ago about cougars and the scientist argued that they think the different subspecies are actually species and i heard the same about other big cat species they mentioned that they think some parties might be against the revognituon of the specids status that would split a non emdangered species into several that are each amd therefor in need of protection i personally find it questionable when people think that different population of big cats would belong to same sub or full species when they have been scientifically proven seperated for long times comparable with comihabitants of their range that are allrrady split into several species they even show physical adaption to their enviorment linking a genetic background
I would have a different objection: that focus on subspecies can hide significant loss of genetic diversity. Loss of lions in Central and Western Africa would be loss of significant part of genetic diversity of the species and possible population increase in South or East Africa cannot offset it. Conservation in small scale can assume that animals in two nearby national parks are exchangeable, in the scale of the continent they are not.
I don't think species are simply man-made constructs. In fact, in biosystematics there's a famous debate on whether species are "categories" (more or less arbitrary man-made classifications) or "objects" (entities that actually exist in nature). Your statements seems to indicate you adhere to the "category" school of taught, while I firmly adhere to the "object" side. I'd love to go into a discussion on this subject but this thread doesn't seem like a good place to do so. First of all, estimating diverce times is a delicate task that should, at least currently, always be taken with a grain of salt. "Proven" is an extremely strong word in science in general and in biosystematics specifically even more so. Secondly, (sub)species or populations evolve and change at different rates and with different magnitudes. Especially in the case of subspecies, some population networks may have accumulated more environment-specific adaptations than others, making a stronger case for recognition of a separate taxonomic or management unit.
Why? Many zoos have been cutting the number of species they keep. The idea of having special breeding programmes for varieties, rather than concentrating on species, seems to be a luxury that shouldn't be considered at a time when so many species are threatened with extinction. Breeding several varieties of lions and tigers with no reintroduction programmes, so the progeny occupy enclosures previously occupied by animals that could be introduced into the wild is not good for conservation if the other species become extinct.
I would tend to agree with this sentiment for conserving regional populations regardless of classification, at least for purposes of conservation in the wild. In the case of lions certainly the West and Central African populations should not be considered non-essential just because the lions in India are considered the same subspecies. In addition to local adaptations regional populations have there is also another dimension. In a world with more and more people persistence of dangerous or destructive species like big cats, bears, or elephants depends on social acceptance, and once they are extirpated from an area that tolerance tends to evaporate. I doubt reintroduction of lions will ever take place in Morocco, Greece, or any other country where they no longer occur. In contrast, there is an active reintroduction movement in India and I'm sure the existence of the Gir lions (and the various tiger populations) helps maintain a public level of acceptance for big cats there.
I agree with this. Lions and tigers should be conserved in the wild. Protecting their natural habitat will also protect other species. Zoos do not need to retain varieties of big cats, but their conservation staff can be involved in protecting the cats in situ.
I think this is generally true. The way zoo big cats are currently managed isn't ideal for conservation through either reintroduction or long term maintenance as assurance populations. As you've alluded, zoo animals are divided up among too many subgroups given the number of available spaces. Asian, Angolan, E. African, S. African, "Barbary", generic, and even white color morph lions are all managed at least somewhat separately. That means that each subgroup has too low a population size to maintain high levels of genetic diversity over the long term, and since most zoo lions are not representative of populations of highest conservation concern in the wild they aren't particularly well-suited to being used for reintroduction either, with the possible exception of Asian lions of known pedigree. It would be better for zoos to separate out animals for long-term assurance (i.e., permanent zoo population) vs. animals involved in reintroduction programs. For long-term populations focus on maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity present in the species. With the high level of zoo interest in lions, it should be feasible to keep two populations representing the two currently recognized subspecies while maintaining high levels of genetic diversity. Separating out Angolan vs Kalahari vs E. African lions would just result in quick reduction of genetic diversity so don't bother. If zoos want their animals to be more useful for in situ conservation through reintroduction, they should take an entirely different approach and keep individuals as satellites of wild populations of conservation concern and engage in regular exchange. For example, imagine if Paris Vincennes kept a pride of W. African lions sourced from Pendjari NP in Benin. The zoo and national park could occasionally swap males to mimic natural social structures. This sort of thing is done pretty regularly with ungulates and even some large carnivores like Mexican Wolves so it should be possible for lions too.
Lions are so popular in zoos, that holding places are sufficient for viable populations of all lineages. The problem is few founders of pure wild origin, as well as zoos reluctance to search for them. Because there is enough zoo-mix display lions, there is a conservation taboo of importing animals from the wild, and there is still a belief that African lions are safe in the wild, which in the last 15 years is no longer true. Zoos should seriously switch to keeping lion lineages separate, like tigers, leopards and other species. Additional caveat is that subspecies discussion should not maroon genetic diversity. Lineages from different regions should be kept separate if possible without worrying of same/different subspecies. Another task specific for lions is tracing whether the population of zoo lions preserves genes no longer found in the wild. Zoo lions potentially preserve genes from e.g. Sahel or West Africa, where lions are now extinct. One more thing - ideally, sick wild lion cubs and problem cattle-killer lions should be rescued and brought to zoos. Everybody knows there is huge mortality of wild cubs, and the viable wild lions are regularry killed. They could enrich the zoo population with no or minimal loss to the wild populations. And naturally, zoos do not need to get involved with wild lions. Lions in human care breed in excess since centuries. Zoos would do it only for wild conservation.
On what basis would you separate the "lineages" if you don't pay attention to subspecies? Leopards and tigers are generally managed on a subspecies level. I'm afraid that a situation as you describe it would reduce genetic viability, as small populations have higher rates of inbreeding. Lions already suffer from decreasing levels of genetic variation, and chopping the (sub)species up into even smaller fractions will only enhance that. With ever increasing human pressure on lion habitat and populations, I fear it is impossible to preserve every regional subtype or genetic variant. The focus should be on saving lions as a genetically viable and evolutionary adaptable species and as a force in their ecosystem.
