Thoughts on subspecies

[MKE Zoo guy]

I’ve been thinking about subspecies a lot as I’ve been going through zoo websites and master plans lately. For one giraffes currently have 4 subspecies while they are still technically labeled as one, and then we have tigers and rhinos, etc. I’m realized many zoos only exhibit one subspecies, like the amur tiger. Should zoos start promoting with better education and possibly exhibiting two subspecies at the same time?

I know there’s always the space and money concern but until I looked more into giraffes, I never knew that there were more then one type. Would displaying more then one subspecies help with conservation efforts or hinder?

 

[Dassie rat]

I can understand why more than one subspecies of tiger can be kept in a zoo specialising in big cats. At a time when many zoos are cutting their collections by building larger exhibits for a few large animals, I can't see the point in replacing species with two or more subspecies of the same species.

 

[Chlidonias]

For one giraffes currently have 4 subspecies while they are still technically labeled as one...

I'm confused over this line. What does it mean?

 

[MKE Zoo guy]

I'm confused over this line. What does it mean?

“Genetic research led to a new taxonomic classification in 2016 when the formerly single species of giraffes changed to four species, five subspecies and two ecotypes. The new species are the northern giraffe, the southern giraffe, the reticulated giraffe and the Masai giraffe.”
Types of Giraffes - Giraffe Facts and Information

 

[Chlidonias]

“Genetic research led to a new taxonomic classification in 2016 when the formerly single species of giraffes changed to four species, five subspecies and two ecotypes. The new species are the northern giraffe, the southern giraffe, the reticulated giraffe and the Masai giraffe.”
Types of Giraffes - Giraffe Facts and Information

How does that explain your sentence from before: "For one giraffes currently have 4 subspecies while they are still technically labeled as one"?

Even if you meant four species (instead of subspecies), what does "they are still technically labeled as one" mean in that context?

 

[birdsandbats]

How does that explain your sentence from before: "For one giraffes currently have 4 subspecies while they are still technically labeled as one"?

Even if you meant four species (instead of subspecies), what does "they are still technically labeled as one" mean in that context?

That zoos treat them the same.

 

[Kakapo]

I'm confused over this line. What does it mean?

I think that it mean that the author considere still only one species of giraffe, as me, and like me, he don't see a reason for spliting in various theorical "species" that doesn't exist.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

I think that it mean that the author considere still only one species of giraffe, as me, and like me, he don't see a reason for spliting in various theorical "species" that doesn't exist.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the proposed species of giraffe don't exist? What are you basing that opinion on?

 

[Kakapo]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that the proposed species of giraffe don't exist? What are you basing that opinion on?

II'm basing my opinion in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species of giraffes and okapis and stabilished that there is a single living species of giraffe (with several subspecies), before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction, in the same way that any other spliting that seems unreasonable for me (=almost every one done after the molecular taxonomy fashion boom, that coincides more or less with those done after 2000, except in the rare cases where I find them reasonable). I'm nobody for accept dramatic changes against science simply by believing blindy in everything that anybody says.

 

[lintworm]

II'm basing my opinion in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species of giraffes and okapis and stabilished that there is a single living species of giraffe (with several subspecies), before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction, in the same way that any other spliting that seems unreasonable for me (=almost every one done after the molecular taxonomy fashion boom, that coincides more or less with those done after 2000, except in the rare cases where I find them reasonable). I'm nobody for accept dramatic changes against science simply by believing blindy in everything that anybody says.

Just because you disagree from the start, doesn't mean that especially in the case of the giraffes the reasons for splitting are justified, where most of the experts now agree that there are multiple giraffe species. We are not talking klipspringers here....

 

[Giant Panda]

II'm basing my opinion in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species of giraffes and okapis and stabilished that there is a single living species of giraffe (with several subspecies), before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction, in the same way that any other spliting that seems unreasonable for me (=almost every one done after the molecular taxonomy fashion boom, that coincides more or less with those done after 2000, except in the rare cases where I find them reasonable). I'm nobody for accept dramatic changes against science simply by believing blindy in everything that anybody says.

In case anyone is tempted by this argument, I previously wrote a rebuttal to @Kakapo's position on the role of genetics in taxonomy here.

 

[lintworm]

In case anyone is tempted by this argument, I previously wrote a rebuttal to @Kakapo's position on the role of genetics in taxonomy here.

I wasn't aware of this post, but it pretty much nails it.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

II'm basing my opinion in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species of giraffes and okapis and stabilished that there is a single living species of giraffe (with several subspecies), before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction, in the same way that any other spliting that seems unreasonable for me (=almost every one done after the molecular taxonomy fashion boom, that coincides more or less with those done after 2000, except in the rare cases where I find them reasonable). I'm nobody for accept dramatic changes against science simply by believing blindy in everything that anybody says.

I presume, then, that you continue to recognise only four genera in the Felidae; Acinonyx, Panthera, Neofelis and Felis you know, given the fact that until the late 20th century this was the standard accepted taxonomy "in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species [of cats] and stabilished that there [are four living genera of cat], before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction" and therefore must be preserved as sacrosanct and never re-evaluated.

 

[Giant Panda]

I presume, then, that you continue to recognise only four genera in the Felidae; Acinonyx, Panthera, Neofelis and Felis you know, given the fact that until the late 20th century this was the standard accepted taxonomy "in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species [of cats] and stabilished that there [are four living genera of cat], before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction" and therefore must be preserved as sacrosanct and never re-evaluated.

This notion of centuries of morphology-based taxonomic stasis punctuated by an explosion of genetic reordering completely ignores the history it claims to value. Even in the 1960s and 70s, before genetic methods really came onto the scene, numerical taxonomy and cladistics were sweeping through the field. Why? Because issues systemic in traditional classification systems were so glaringly obvious, even to morphologists.

 

[MKE Zoo guy]

So coming back to the originally topic about displaying subspecies and not the Illuminati, should zoos that are taking more of a conservation approach display subspecies of animals at the same zoo? Now I’m not saying to display them together in the same exhibit but having several of the subspecie animals at the Same zoo.

The reasoning behind my thought process is that many zoos in the US are struggling to find the balance of awareness and conservation. By displaying maybe a couple of subspecies together people can start to get a better awareness and understanding of the vast animal kingdom and the reason why it’s important to protect them. Also displaying subspecies together the zoos infrastructure doesn’t need to as vast and potentially save money there that they could spend in conservational efforts.

Just some quick research, in the several zoos that are near me, the Amur tiger is on display, none of the other subspecies. Would it be beneficial if a zoo displays more then one kind to better educate the public? Would seeing the difference in the tigers make what they read become reality and not something that they only see pictures of?

I give this example to showcase maybe there’s a need for this or for zoos within an certain distance of one another to diversify their collection. Maybe zoos don’t need to display subspecies at the same location but maybe they need to showcase the subspecies more within areas of higher concentrations of zoos.

 

[Kakapo]

I presume, then, that you continue to recognise only four genera in the Felidae; Acinonyx, Panthera, Neofelis and Felis you know, given the fact that until the late 20th century this was the standard accepted taxonomy "in the opinion of the whole world and all the scientific community, that studied exhaustively all the living and fossil species [of cats] and stabilished that there [are four living genera of cat], before some illuminati decided that they dislike the accepted classificaction" and therefore must be preserved as sacrosanct and never re-evaluated.

Of course that not. Many genus of felids was already considered different many years before the spliting fashion, and the ones that did posteriorly (such as Leopardus and Prionailurus from Felis) seems reasonable, and the even latter ones (Herpailurus from Puma) seems extremely reasonable. Nowadays I accept the current cat taxonomy, except by Ocotolobus (still in Felis for me), and in a neutral doubt space about considering Profelis and Catopuma as the same genus or not. I don't know from where you got the idea that a time limit is the reason for accept or not accept changes, as I never claimed that. A good example would be the division of genus Lacerta. Gallotia and Timon was purposed as separate genus at same year, but Gallotia was widely accepted for many years before Timon was accepted as something more than a subgenus. I learned all Gallotia species as Gallotia, while I learned Timon as Lacerta. Your statement above is clearly exaggerated and unreasonable and I don't like to be treated in this ridiculous way.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Many genus of felids was already considered different many years before the spliting fashion

Only at subgenera level at most; for instance the most recent edition of Walker's Mammals of the World, published in April 1999, holds the Felidae comprises 4 genera and cites a *vast* number of authors and research papers in proposing this to be the case. The first major reference work to accept a more diverse Felidae as a given was, as far as I have encountered, the 2006 edition of Encyclopedia of Mammals by David Macdonald.

and in a neutral doubt space about considering Profelis and Catopuma as the same genus or not

No one lumps those two genera in any case, as they are not particularly close kin in terms of genetics *or* morphology. You may be thinking about the fact that Profelis has been folded into Caracal?

I don't know from where you got the idea that a time limit is the reason for accept or not accept changes, as I never claimed that.

You certainly implied this strongly, given the fact you said the following:

in the same way that any other spliting that seems unreasonable for me (=almost every one done after the molecular taxonomy fashion boom, that coincides more or less with those done after 2000,

...which suggests that you find "almost every" split proposed after 2000 unreasonable.

 

[Okapipako]

So coming back to the originally topic about displaying subspecies and not the Illuminati, should zoos that are taking more of a conservation approach display subspecies of animals at the same zoo? Now I’m not saying to display them together in the same exhibit but having several of the subspecie animals at the Same zoo.

The reasoning behind my thought process is that many zoos in the US are struggling to find the balance of awareness and conservation. By displaying maybe a couple of subspecies together people can start to get a better awareness and understanding of the vast animal kingdom and the reason why it’s important to protect them. Also displaying subspecies together the zoos infrastructure doesn’t need to as vast and potentially save money there that they could spend in conservational efforts.

Just some quick research, in the several zoos that are near me, the Amur tiger is on display, none of the other subspecies. Would it be beneficial if a zoo displays more then one kind to better educate the public? Would seeing the difference in the tigers make what they read become reality and not something that they only see pictures of?

I give this example to showcase maybe there’s a need for this or for zoos within an certain distance of one another to diversify their collection. Maybe zoos don’t need to display subspecies at the same location but maybe they need to showcase the subspecies more within areas of higher concentrations of zoos.

Generally I would think that displaying entirely different threatened species instead of another tiger or giraffe would diversify more and hold more conservation value. I can see how two subspecies could pay off, though - most people aren't really aware that subspecies are a thing, and having two living examples alongside each other with signage focusing on the concept and its relevance to conservation would be a much stronger introduction than a textbook chapter.

I don't know. If done right with a clear message implied I think it could be worth it, although maybe with a less resource-heavy species than big cats or giraffes?

 

[MKE Zoo guy]

Usually I would think that displaying entirely different threatened species instead of another tiger or giraffe would diversify more and hold more conservation value. I can see how two subspecies could pay off, though - most people aren't really aware that subspecies are a thing, and having two living examples alongside each other with signage focusing on the concept and its relevance to conservation would be a much stronger introduction than a textbook chapter.

I don't know. If done right with a clear message implied I think it could be worth it, although maybe with a less resource-heavy species than big cats or giraffes?

I was thinking about that less resource heavy species, but then I thought those are major guest draw animals. So I wonder...

I know my current zoo is going under major renovation currently in the next 10 or 20 years and they are talking about having white and black rhinos on display. Again resource heavy but will it pay off on achieving awareness and more conservation efforts I’m still on the fence about.

 

[Okapipako]

Black and white rhinos are separate species, though. Or were you talking about how that's a similar problem of conservation/diversity-vs-funds given that to most people it'd just be 'another rhino' at a passing glance?