yeah i thought so. melbourne and taronga list their animals simply as Elephas maximus. whereas if you take into account what seems to currently be the most excepted division of subspecies, its very likely they are all purebred Elephas maximus indicus. is there areason why the zoos have chosen to do it this way? as for gorillas, an error i'm sure. thanks zoopro.
You may be interested to know that in Europe, EEP is trying to concentrate on purebreeding West African Chimpanzee (P.t.verus) and phasing out all the other hybrid breeders. No easy task as many zoos keep large groups which comprise many 'mixed race' animals. Also the parentage is often difficult to trace/ascertain where multi-male groups are kept and multiple matings with females occur, unless DNA testing is used. West African chimp is also sometimes known as 'masked chimpanzee' as in younger animals there is a distinctive area of dark pigmentation around eyes and upper face. This fades with age though so isn't a reliable marker for older animals.
the other thing is this - there are many different techniques of DNA testing that harbour remarkably different results. recently i read that certain wild chimp populations seemed more closely related to pygmy chimps than other chimpanzees. suffice to say i'm sure there is a degree of "blending" that at least prior to habitat fragmentaion occoured between different so-called "subspecies". even african forest elephants now designated a seperate species - still interbreed with their savannah cousins in some areas and what about african buffalo? two "subspecies" that couldn't look any more different from eachother!! whats my point? (actually let me think for a sec ) oh yeah, my point is that the jury is still somewhat out on the precise taxonomy of chimpanzees, and thus zoos could spend the next 10 years on the ardous process of re-ordering their troops and phasing out, only to find it is was all unnecessary!
I agree with you 100% on this point. As the taxonomy of chimps still remains a clouded issue, what's the point in zoos 'jumping the gun' on this. Also, after decades of freely breeding in captivity, virtually all zoo chimps are mixed race anyway and a nightmare to trace their ancestry/parentage etc. This isn't something I feel is high priority for zoos to attempt.
On the other hand, if you have a group of chimpanzees from which you know they all came from the same region, and you keep breeding with them you are pretty sure you're breeding pure-breds... A large group of chimps just recently entered the European zoo community from a testing centre in the Netherlands and all these chimps came from one collection centre from one country, and are all believed to be p.t.Verus. They are now focusin to continue breeding with this specific group, and whether or not the subspecies are allready set, i'm happy they at least try to use a group from the same region.
That makes good sense if the provenance/origin of the animals is known, then its perfectly possible to continue with that line and make sure it remains pure. Also perhaps encourage other zoos to only breed from animals derived this pure stock too. The problems arise with all the racially mixed groups which have been in zoos for many years, -trying to unravel their ancestry or exchange them for animals of known race seems an impossible task to me.
