Thoughts on subspecies

Yes, I don’t think people will see it as separate species and that they are just rhinos. Along with resource being given and not much education given to hit home different species.

 

I think this would likely be the case for the large majority of zoo visitors.

 

Oppps, yes, I mean Caracal not Catopuma. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote this .
For the last sentence, you miss two tiny but important details: the taxon changes was unreasonable for me, that doesn't meand that they're unreasonable as everybody can follow the taxonomic school that they prefair for each taxon, and the other is that I said that the molecular taxonomy fashion boom coincide more or less with 2000 forwards, but as you know for each taxon is a different date, and anyway the date is not the reason (for me) for accept a taxonomic change or not, but the grade of worldwide acceptance and overall the grade of "looking adequate" when comparing the appareance of the different taxons.

 

I think all animals should be managed on species level only in captivity to consolidate space to preserve as many species as possible, each with the most genetic diversity possible.

It bothers me enough that most zoos are now homogenizing their collections and phasing out so many animal species to concentrate on a select few, but it seems even more wrong to be doing that while still preserving multiple races of a single species like Amur, Bengal, and Sumatran tigers.

In an ideal world, we could maintain them all, but with zoo space limited as it, it is just wasting resources we could be using on other animal species.

 

I think people are getting hung up on the terminology being used. Subspecies was an added taxonomic classification once scientists realized that the Linnean classification system (Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Family, Genus, Species) was not able to accurately group organisms without added steps. Modern phylogenetics has tried to fit these terms into modern clades that better fit our understanding of evolution and ancestry but it can only be done if dozens of extra steps are added (suborder, superorder, subfamily, superfamily, etc.). Our spoken languages are not able to accurately describe these relationships without visual tools such as cladograms.

What I'm saying is that arguing over if something is a species or subspecies is useless unless we are talking about how conservation efforts are implemented. Many governments do not care about subspecies and use the same conservation methods for an entire species when in reality, different efforts would be better for different populations or ecotypes (subspecies). Because of this, I do believe that managing animals for breeding is best when we take distinct populations or subspecies and manage them separately than other members of the same species. This allows us to best keep genetic diversity high for those subspecies in the event that release becomes an option. There was another thread about hybrids in zoos and I made similar points there.

If we want to use the example of tigers in zoos, most tiger are managed similarly and most tiger exhibits are similar in structure and function. Because of this, any zoo that has a tiger exhibit can reasonably manage a group of tigers from any of the subspecies currently in captivity. But going with my point of keeping the subspecies separate for the best opportunities for release in the future, zoos are best to focus on one subspecies. This is because the average zoo could probably only afford to keep one group of tigers so their resources are best used to support a specific SSP or breeding program for one subspecies.

There are cases of zoos keeping multiple subspecies for one reason or another. SD Zoo Safari Park now has a pair of tiger cubs on exhibit where one is a Sumatran ecotype and the other is a Bengal. This can happen because again, tiger exhibits around the country can generally be inhabited by any tiger subspecies.

I do not believe that resources are being wasted because zoos use modern scientific research to determine breeding recommendations. All their resources are going to conserving the animals either by breeding or by holding non-breeding animals so that other facilities can have the space to breed. Resources would be wasted if a zoo was exhibiting multiple subspecies in the limited space that they had with no contribution to maintaining genetic diversity.

 

I agree.

I also want to be clear that I’m not talking about breeding subspecies together to get hybrid species. I’m talking about keeping species and subspecies separate from one another and no cross breading. What I was referring two is having the different species or subspecies on display in different exhibits or have them in the same exhibit space but rotating when they are on display. With the main focus of keeping the biodiversity up and conservation at the forefront.

I understand that many parts tend to treat species (that have similar cousins, rhinos as example) or subspecies as one species but isn’t it worth noting the differences in a way that promotes a better understanding of similar species or subspecies?

I’ve been to a couple of zoos where they announce the name of the species, and for the purpose of understanding I’m using the Amur Tiger as an example. They have all the details about the animal where it lives, a cool fact or two, and a few other random things. Rarely though have I’ve seen something that talks about the versions of tigers that exist. Now I know they aren’t on display but shouldn’t there even be an acknowledgement that another species or subspecies exist?

 

Actually, ir I remember well, Linnean classification didn't included Family but included Class.

 

If the Amur tiger can be released into the wild, why aren't there any plans for this? There seem to be no plans for this, despite there seeming to be more Amur tigers in captivity than in the wild. There would be a big risk in releasing captive tigers into the wild. I would expect the tigers to still associate people with food, so there would be a strong possibility that they would prey on livestock or people. Tigers should be conserved in the wild along with their natural habitat. I doubt if many zoo visitors are bothered about which subspecies of tiger they are looking at and I think many visitors would prefer to see white tigers. Many visitors expect to see tigers in zoos, but then they also expect to see meerkats and I doubt that zoos keep meerkats for their conservation value.

 

All animals that are part of an SSP or the equivalent are breed to keep genetic diversity up for the eventual possibility of release into the wild. The reason zoos aren’t currently releasing is because neither the tigers in human care nor their natural habitats are ready. You’re right that Zoo tigers would associate humans with food so there would need to be an overhaul with how tigers are kept and the construction of preconditioning pens in their natural habitat. This is how zoos release other endangered animals. We just aren’t at that point yet with tigers of any subspecies because there’d be no point if they’d just be poached or their habitat would be destroyed. Those problems need to be solved first but zoos are thinking ahead by keeping diversity high within subspecies.

 

My response about keeping subspecies separate was mostly geared towards Sheather’s post as a way to show that managing ecotypes is the best way to conserve animals in captivity. I would love to go to a zoo and see two different ecotypes or subspecies. I think it would have great educational merit. It does all come down to resources and most zoos can really only afford to manage one subspecies at a time.

I have been to zoos that have signage that mentions there are 9 subspecies of giraffe or that there are 5 species of rhino and that all are endangered. I guess it depends on the zoo and what education messages they want to convey.

 

You're very optimistic, Echobeast. The human population continues to grow and natural habitats continue to be destroyed. I can't see there being a time when captive tigers can be released into the wild. I can't see the point of keeping thousands of captive tigers to prepare for an unlikely utopia. Tigers are more dangerous than wolves, but I can't really see wild wolves being reintroduced to the UK. By keeping subspecies of tigers in captivity, we are reducing the number of endangered species that could be bred in captivity and released into suitable wild habitats.

 

So we should just give up on conserving tigers because it’s “unlikely” that release will become a viable option? That goes against the point of zoos as an ark for animals to remain alive and safe in a turbulent time until it gets better.

And if you read my oringinal post, I make the point that zoos can keep any tiger subspecies in any tiger habitat. This allows us to manage tigers as ecotypes to keep the possibility of release realistic. All tigers could be grouped as a species and the habitats we have built could be suitable for them as well. However, no government is going to allow the release of hybrids even if conditions for release get better. Hypothetically, all tigers could be managed as a species and we’d have probably the same number as we do today. But the conservation value is lost in these “mutt” tigers so this would be a waste of conservation value that could go to saving tigers in the wild or another species in a zoo.

And your last sentence goes against your first statement. Who’s to say that these other endangered species can’t be released either for the same reasons? And nobody has given proof that keeping one subspecies has been a detriment to another subspecies. How is keeping tigers as subspecies reducing the amount of resources for another species? Keeping an Amur tiger takes approximately the same resources as a Sumatran. There is little to no difference. The cost would be similar to a “mutt” tiger but again, we lose any conservation value. So how would managing tigers as a species benefit other animals if the cost is the same as keeping them as subspecies (with the added benefits of keeping ecotypes separate)?

 

As I said before, you are being very optimistic. The human population is likely to keep growing at least until 2050, by which time I doubt if there will be any viable tiger habitat left, except possibly in the Amur area. I do not believe that Sumatran tigers could survive there, nor would Amur tigers adapt well to the Amur area.

I agree that resources are being wasted in keeping tiger subspecies in captivity. This money would be better used to saving tigers in the wild.

This is very confusing and somewhat contradictory. Several Zoochatters lament the fact that many zoos are reducing the number of species they keep. This is often done to build large enclosures for popular large species. You are right that some captive animals are difficult to return to the wild, but some zoos have been involved in keeping and breeding relatively unpopular animals and releasing them into the wild. I visited Wildwood and was impressed by their breeding programme for water voles, which helps to replenish the species in the wild. Similarly, London Zoo breeds field crickets for the same purpose. I doubt that many people visit zoos to see water voles or field crickets, but they can be bred and released. I don't believe that tigers are being kept for the same purpose. Nor do I believe that endangered unpopular animals, which are not being protected in the wild and are not kept in captivity, should be doomed to extinction due to a lack of interest from zoo visitors.

 

Well then it’s a good thing you’re not in charge of the breeding programs because we’d lose any hope of release if you were only based on your bleak outlook on the future of the planet.

This isn’t what I said at all. What I mean by “mutt” is hybrid of different subspecies if tigers were managed as a species instead of subspecies. There is literally no waste of resources and you have not shown how it is a waste.

You can believe whatever you want. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Zoo’s wouldn’t waste their time keeping tigers managed as ecotypes unless there was a point. If tigers were solely an attraction for visitors, we’d have hybrids on display. The fact that we don’t proved this point wrong.

These are not mutually exclusive. Different breeding and release programs can be at different stages. Tigers just happen to be at the stage where there is no viable release option at this time. In the future, they can be managed just like the examples you gave.

Neither do I. But zoological facilities need funds. Bringing people in to see tigers make those conservation efforts possible. The tigers allow for both their conservation efforts and those of the unpopular animals to be funded.

 

And I suppose the principle of breeding for the sake of breeding is worthwhile. That is why some zoos have several meerkat enclosures, which occupy areas that could be used for less popular animals. In my life time, the human population has increased three times and I doubt if world leaders want to bring about mass genocide and the end of medical research. Therefore the population will continue rising. This is not based on my bleak outlook on the future of the planet. It is based on what is happening.

I admit that I misread the statement about 'mutt' and 'subspecies', but I doubt if visitors would be bothered about seeing a 'mutt' tiger, rather than a pure 'subspecies'. You seem to be implying that replacing enclosures for many species with a few large enclosures for a few subspecies of tigers is a good use of resources. I would prefer to have viable breeding populations of many species, especially those representing the only extant species families and orders.

Hopefully you allow all Zoochatters to believe what ever they want and the right to change their minds. Some zoos keep certain animals that most visitors do not want to see. This is a good thing, otherwise zoos would resemble some branches of stores, where a shopper can see the same items, regardless of location. If this would be the case for zoos, there would be very few small mammals, birds and reptiles and other animals would only have a few representatives. The fact that zoos keep different subspecies of tigers does not prove that visitors wouldn't prefer to see a 'mutt' tiger.

Is it really worthwhile to stop the potential breeding and release of small endangered species and replace their enclosures with large tiger enclosures for the pipe dream that the human population will decrease dramatically and there will be forests with enough space to hold formerly captive tigers and that these are not likely to kill people and their livestock?

I agree that zoological facilities need funds, but I would prefer them to spend money on conserving tigers in their natural habitats, rather than spending millions on new enclosures. Shepreth encourages visitors to help conserve species that are not on show. There is a current forum on Zoochat about whether whales should be kept in captivity. There are whale conservation charities for species that will probably never be kept in captivity. I have seen the way that enclosures for lions and tigers have gradually replaced those for other species of cats. The recent BBC Series 'Big Cats' showed a variety of species. There are several endangered cat species that used to be kept in European zoos, but are no longer kept, even though they could potentially be bred and returned to the wild. Are these species less valuable than having hundreds of specimens of tiger subspecies and an unrealistic dream that they can be released into the wild?

 

You keep misrepresenting my position and are not addressing the main concerns I raise nor the concerns of this thread so this is the last time I’m replying to you. Maybe take your time and re-read my posts and do some research.

I am not implying that at all. What I’m saying is that the tiger exhibits that are around today can be used for any tiger of any subspecies or breed. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to keep ecotypes pure because like you said, a Sumatran Tiger would not do well in the Amur regions. This is why keeping the ecotypes pure is so important. It doesn’t matter if you think there will be enough habitat in 50 years because it’s a multifaceted approach. Keep tigers in captivity until conservation efforts in the wild restore the natural habitats.

Re-read the first sentence of my quote: “You can believe whatever you want.”

This doesn’t mean whatever you choose to believe is actually true or the best way to manage an endangered species in human care. If you have a differing opinion and think zoos are doing it wrong, voice it to the zoos. Become a researcher. Because I think they’ve spent more time thinking about these issues than either one of us.

Who says we’d have to stop? Again, none of this is mutually exclusive. You are also oversimplifying what the release process for tigers would be like. It’s way more complicated than just releasing captive born tigers to a vulnerable area where people and livestock live. Again, think critically and do your research.

Not mutually exclusive. They both can happen. Bigger and better exhibits can improve the lives of the animals, increase breeding for the sake of the “ark” and bring in more people who support and donate money to conservation efforts the zoo participates in. You are making it like zoos can either have nice exhibits or fund conservation efforts. Both can happen.

Of course not but you chalking up the plans of the future release of tigers as an unrealistic dream hurts everyone involved. Why is releasing tigers a dream but field crickets a reality? Was saving the California condor a dream? Probably but they are in a much better situation today than they were because of the SAME management principles zoo’s use to manage any species or subspecies including tigers.

 

I think both of us have misunderstood the other and I agree that there is little point in continuing this argument, as there seems to be much more heat than light. MKE Zoo guy originally considered whether a zoo should keep more than 1 subspecies of tiger; I remember the Alfred Brehm House in the Berlin Tierpark having 3 subspecies in 1984 and it made a change to be able to compare them, but I wonder how many other visitors were interested. Since that time, many zoos have greatly reduced their collections and many species are no longer kept in Europe. Meanwhile, larger enclosures gave been built for favoured animals in the name of 'conservation,' while the zoo directors have no intention of returning the animals to the wild. Several Zoochatters have shown concern about Damien Aspinall sending zoo animals to the wild, but isn't this one of the reasons that zoos use to justify their existence. I know several people who would be happy to see the end of zoos. Zoos have saved several species, but the 'stamp book' collections of many hundreds of species in the 1960's are often being replaced by having many examples of some species and few, if any, of others. That principle works well if some of the animals are released into the wild, but not if several enclosures are occupied by individuals of one species or subspecies, rather than several species. I doubt if many visitors are interested in seeing the same species several times in a visit.

I admit that I misread "Zoos can keep any tiger subspecies in any tiger habitat". I took the words 'tiger habitat' to mean wild habitats, rather than zoo enclosures.

There is no evidence that conservation efforts in the wild will restore the natural habitats sufficiently to release captive tigers into the wild. Natural habitats are disappearing far more rapidly than conservationists can restore them. The largest population of wild tigers is in India, which is also undergoing a massive rise in its human population. Indonesia, Malaysia and China are also showing increased populations.

This makes an assumption that all zoo directors know more about animals and their conservation than you or I or other Zoochatters. Several Zoochatters are very critical about the zoos they have visited, ranging from mislabeled species to animals kept in very poor conditions. Today, I received an e-mail about zoo animals being drugged at Argentina's Lujan Zoo so that visitors can pet them. Some zoo directors seem to be more bothered about making money than about looking after animals.

As far as I know, there is only one institution aiming to return tigers to the wild. This involves South China tigers in South Africa's Laohu Valley Reserve. As humans continue to encroach into areas occupied by tigers, there will be few places where tigers do not pose a risk to tigers. The situation is getting worse. If zoos can't prepare tigers for release into the wild now, there will be less chance in the future.
There was an estimated 2,429-2,519 mature wild Bengal tigers in 2014; 480-540 wild Amur tigers in 2015, 350 wild Indochinese tigers in 2010, 250-340 wild Malayan tigers in 2013; 73 captive South China tigers in 2007 and 441-679 wild Sumatran tigers in 2008.

I agree with most of this and I know people who are involved in conservation work in the wild. The problem lies with spending millions of pounds on an enclosure for a few tigers, rather than using the same money to conserve tigers and other animals in the wild. One of the reasons why I joined the RSPB was because it had bought land in Sumatra to conserve wildlife. Zoos should be encouraging visitors to help a wide variety of animals, not just the large and/or charismatic species. They don't need to keep captives of species to interest people in that species. There are many endangered species that are not kept in zoos and receive little, if any, interest from conservationists.

I can easily answer your complaints. Captive tigers aren't be released into the wild and it seems unlikely that they ever will be released. Field crickets are being released into the wild and the species can be bred and released in the future. Saving the California condor was a dream that became a reality. So was Carl Jones' work in recovering the Mauritius kestrel from 4 individuals. Zoos have saved tigers, especially the South China tiger, from extinction, but the South China tiger seems to be the only subspecies being used for a potential reintroduction programme. Meanwhile, ZTL lists 8 zoos with Malayan tigers, no zoos with Bengal tigers, 181 zoos with Amur tigers, 58 zoos with Sumatran tigers and 162 zoos with 'mutt' tigers.

Perhaps we can reach a compromise by encouraging zoos to stop keeping 'mutt' tigers by ceasing breeding. I doubt if this will happen because, as you say, tigers attract people. Unfortunately, their enclosures could be redesigned to keep a variety of endangered species that would also attract people. For example, I have never seen a quokka, but semi-captive quokkas are inquisitive and could become just as popular as meerkats.

 

I have the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions of "Walker's Mammals of the World".

The treatment of the family Felidae in the third edition is interesting with six genera recognised. The generic name Leo, NOT the familiar Panthera, is used for the big cats with the snow leopard separated in Uncia. The lynxes are separated into Lynx (with the caracal also included in that genus). Not surprisingly, the clouded leopard and cheetah are placed in Neofelis and Acinonyx respectively with all other cats lumped Felis.

In the fourth, fifth and sixth editions, the more traditional four genera of Panthera, Neofelis, Acinonyx and Felis are listed.

But thirty years before the McDonald book, “Wild Cats of the World” (C. A. W. Guggisberg; 1975) presented a very “spilt” classification of the Felidae with fifteen different genera recognised.

It doesn’t agree exactly with the current generally accepted classification; for example, both the Asiatic golden cat and the African golden cat are placed in Profelis instead of Catopuma and Caracal respectively but it is very different to the traditional four genera Panthera, Neofelis, Acinonyx and Felis.

 

I didn't feel like wading through all of the posts on here, but to answer your original question, I think to a small extent, it would be neat if zoos did exhibit multiple subspecies of the same species. For example, giraffes could be placed in a bachelor (or bachelorette) herd that prevents hybrids but could showcase their differences. Amur tigers could be kept in an area showcasing species from the Far East whereas Malayan tigers could be in a Southeast Asia exhibit. You probably wouldn't want too much repitition as a zoo goer might get bored, but a little would make things interesting.

 

I think you are right, not having too much repetition on similar species/subspecies. I was thinking for the giraffes not even really creating bachelor or bachelorette exhibits but creating exhibits showcasing other animals, similar to a safari. That way you can keep the animals separate without cross breeding between the two, show case more then just one animal in a exhibit, and creating story on conservation. Showcasing the subspecies/species without creating to much of a repetition that the general public gets bored.