Tiger Species I’d be interested to hear about people’s opinions on the tiger species seen in zoos. What’s your favourite tiger species? What tiger species do you think is the most import to conserve in zoos? What tiger species do you think is the biggest crowd puller? What tiger species would you like to see brought back from extinction?
The modern subspecies are: Bengal Tiger Indochinese Tiger Malayan Tiger Siberian Tiger South China Tiger Sumatran Tiger Balinese Tiger (extinct) Javan Tiger (extinct) Caspian Tiger (extinct)
What’s your favourite tiger species? Sumatran tiger as they are the main focus species in my region. What tiger species do you think is the most import to conserve in zoos? The Sumatran and the Siberian. The Sumatran is the smallest species and widespread in zoos worldwide as it suits most climates. The Siberian does not suit warm climates but is the largest of the tiger species and is an impressive species that I have enjoyed seeing in European zoos. It would be a great zoological loss if it ever went extinct or was phased out of zoos. What tiger species do you think is the biggest crowd puller? Bengal tiger (white variant). What tiger species would you like to see brought back from extinction? Balinese tiger. They were the smallest of the tiger species and were believed to have spots in between their stripes!
As with many animals, there is a lot of debate regarding subspecies. Recent testing (using samples from museum specimens) indicates that the extinct Caspian tiger is probably the same as the Siberian/Amur tiger. However, this gets even more confusing with the recent announcement by IUCN of a new taxonomic revision for the entire cat family (reported today on another thread). The new taxonomy lists only two subspecies of tigers (an idea that has been floating around the last couple years). One is the Asian or Mainland tiger, which will consume the Siberian/Amur, Caspian, Indian/Bengal, N Indochinese, Malayan, S China. The other is Sunda Islands tiger, which will consume Balinese, Sumatran, Javan.
Regardless of their status, I think all tigers deserve equal protection and I would hate to have to pick one over another to save. As a photographer my favorite is the Sumatran because their thick facial ruff and dark orange coat makes them the most beautiful race of an already beautiful cat.
It is important to keep the ecosystem in check by keeping species like tiger in check. Just because the subspecies isn't about to be extinct does not mean it's okay to leave a large area or ecosytsem tigerless, since it might as well have the same affect of a tiger being extinct. Same applies to other animals.
They're all pretty great, I can't say that one deserves to be saved more than the other. Which tiger is a bigger crowd-pleaser? I don't think the average person can really tell the difference between subspecies, or may not even know about subspecies. (shoot, even I have a lot of trouble identifying them) Most popular with crowds is a color mutation, the white tiger, and all modern white tigers are mixed between Bengal and Siberian. As for my personal favorite? I'm pretty biased toward Sumatran tigers, (who guessed?) when I first saw some in a zoo their striking color really stood out to me, unlike any other tiger I've seen in person. And that ruff of fur that the males have, so cute! South China tigers are cool too, again, it's the coat, it really stands out. If I could bring back a tiger subspecies? I'd probably go with the Caspian tiger. They had a much larger range than the Balinese and Javan tigers.
Outside of the zoo enthusiast/conservation world, the vast majority of people seem pretty enamoured with the white tigers, and indeed believe they are a species, an an endangered one at that! I think it's this misconception, combined with the fact that curating them does little for conservation other than generate revenue/donations that makes them unpopular amongst the zoo enthusiasts/conservationists. Personally, I like them and enjoy seeing them but wouldn't want them to be widespread in all our zoos as I believe a focus on a regional breeding programme (such as the Sumatran tiger breeding programme) is a better use of space, and a more constructive effort towards conservation. Balinese tigers were confined to the island of Bali I believe, hence their name. It sounds like they too had a beautiful coat (spots and stripes!) but yes that ruff of fur on some male Sumatrans is pretty awesome. Not all have it but Jae Jae (2008) at London Zoo is especially impressive if anyone wants to Google him.
Ok, enough talk about how beautiful Sumatran tigers are. Let's see some photographic proof! Sumatran tiger by Arizona Docent posted 10 Apr 2017 at 8:39 PM
I like all tigers equally even the white ones. I did not know there was the possibility of only two subspecies but I had heard that the Caspian and Amur are thought to be the same subspecies by some taxonomists. Caspians did look similar, based on pictures I've seen.
Most attractive tiger subspecies for me, and want to see next in zoos, is the Malayan tiger ( I saw Sumatran male tiger at Attica zoological park - I expected to be with blue eyes). I love to see this subspecies having a self-sustaining population in Europe; Currently there are 10 holders in Europe of this subspecies with about 15-20 animals. I think Indochinese and Malayan tigers are in a most desperate condition in the wild and need urgent ex-situ conservation measures, since there will be not much place in the wilderness for big cats like this in near and distant future. I believe Bengal tiger is well-secured in zoos in India (with over 220 cats). Sumatran and Siberian tigers are well-secured in zoos world-wide, Malayan tiger has a good population in the U.S. (but not sure how pure breed are those tigers?). I really, really hope that the Malayan tigers in Europe will not be phased-out. What would be the problem - space? No, it shouldn't be that case - there are plenty of zoos. And, Indochinese tiger is the subspecies in a most desperate condition since there is not a well-coordinated captive breeding programme, and not much space left in the wilderness of Southeast Asia for this big cat. I would love Balli tiger to be brought back from extinction. I don't like seeing serious zoos keeping white tigers. Also, quite interesting thread
I think I'm in the minority in that I do like to see white tigers, even if they don't have conservation value.
I think the South-China tiger needs to be protected the most. It is currently extinct in the wild and is native to China where space is becoming more and more limited and there is a demand for tiger products.
The only issue I have with white tigers is if the zoo is inbreeding white tigers to get them. If a white tiger is a rescue animal I have no problem with a zoo or aquarium exhibiting them, since some areas don't have rescue facilities to keep such tigers. Examples being the pair at the fort worth zoo.
Awesome photo @Arizona Docent! Kemiri (born 1994) at the Adelaide Zoo https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/2f/38/2c/adelaide-zoo.jpg
Articles on the tiger reclassification: https://www.seeker.com/some-tigers-could-be-wiped-out-to-save-others-1769977320.html https://phys.org/news/2015-06-tiger-subspecies.html http://www.fv-berlin.de/news/fewer-tiger-subspecies-2013-better-protection?set_language=en Sunda Tiger (Sumatran, Balinese and Javan) Continental Tiger (Bengal, Indochinese, Malayan, Siberian, South China and Caspian)
I’m quite divided on the reclassification. It will undoubtedly simplify efforts to conserve the South China and Indochinese tiger, neither of which are a main focus of zoos globally compared to other sub species. Under this reclassification, the Sumatran tiger breeding programme would continue as before, except they would be known as the Sundar tiger, but it will have huge implications for the sub species reclassified as the Continental tiger. It’s incredible to think tigers previously described as hybrids would be reclassified as purebred Continental tigers, assuming they had no Sumatran tiger ancestry.
Siberian tigers are twice the size of Malayan tigers, so treating them the same seems silly to me. As I understand it, subspecies delineation requires a distinct geographic barrier between populations. Perhaps the races of tigers on the mainland were all connected until human hunting pressure caused fragmentation. However even if this is the case, there is at very least a gradual change from north to south so that by the time you get to one end of the range (Siberian tigers) they are very different from those at the other end (Malayan tigers). I think this justifies treating them separately for conservation breeding purposes. Plus what if there is another study ten years from now that says oh wait, the subspecies are valid after all, but zoos have started hybridizing them. In that case all hope is lost.
So well stated. While Malayan, Indochinese, South China, and Bengal tigers all look pretty similar, there is definitely no denying that Amur tigers are quite different. At the very least there would likely be two continental subspecies. I agree with you, I hope zoos continue to manage the different subspecies as they are now. If this has been discussed previously I apologize, but has it been proven that Amur and Caspian tigers are the same subspecies?
