Why aren't some [sub] species kept in captivity

[Tapirus Lar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think different subspecies of the same species have major differences in captive care and breeding. Even for some species like gorillas, i don't think an eastern lowland gorilla and a western lowland gorilla would have completely different captive needs.
So why is it so that some subspecies of species readily kept and bred in zoos, many of which are endangered, aren't kept or bred in captivity?
For example, Sudan and south African cheetahs are kept and bred in zoos across the globe, but why is it so that northwest African cheetahs aren't kept anywhere?
Or how about Indochinese leopards , which aren't kept anywhere except a few places in Indochina, but amurs are more commonly kept, even though amurs live in remote regions, and both subspecies are critically endangered?
I know colonialization, proximity of the species; range to ports and trade routes and countries' export policies may've paid a role, but what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Tapirus Lar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think different subspecies of the same species have major differences in captive care and breeding. Even for some species like gorillas, i don't think an eastern lowland gorilla and a western lowland gorilla would have completely different captive needs.
So why is it so that some subspecies of species readily kept and bred in zoos, many of which are endangered, aren't kept or bred in captivity?
For example, Sudan and south African cheetahs are kept and bred in zoos across the globe, but why is it so that northwest African cheetahs aren't kept anywhere?
Or how about Indochinese leopards , which aren't kept anywhere except a few places in Indochina, but amurs are more commonly kept, even though amurs live in remote regions, and both subspecies are critically endangered?
I know colonialization, proximity of the species; range to ports and trade routes and countries' export policies may've paid a role, but what are your thoughts on this?

For instance eastern lowland gorillas are kept almost nowhere, while the western lowland is widely kept and bred, despite the astern lowlands having a lesser population and being critically endangered.
I understand this is because westerns lived in places near the western coast of africa, from where they could be collected and exported to europe quite conveniently, whle the easterns lived in more central and eastern parts, being far away from ports and sea transport

 

[OkapiJohn]

Lack of space for all of that. Rather having a solid and sustainable population of one subspecies than crappy populations of all those subspecies. It is not only breeding and husbandry that matters for an ex-situ programme. Numbers matter for the genetic long-term sustainability of a population.

 

[Tapirus Lar]

Lack of space for all of that. Rather having a solid and sustainable population of one subspecies than crappy populations of all those subspecies. It is not only breeding and husbandry that matters for an ex-situ programme. Numbers matter for the genetic long-term sustainability of a population.

I understand that, but my question was-why arent they held instead of the other species?
For example, we could have had a.j heckii and aj. venaticus instead of south african and sudan cheetahs if availability of subspecies was different back then

 

[Dassie rat]

It is probably far cheaper to obtain subspecies kept in several collections than those rarely kept. Also, fewer zoos collect animals from the wild

 

[cerperal]

I understand that, but my question was-why arent they held instead of the other species?
For example, we could have had a.j heckii and aj. venaticus instead of south african and sudan cheetahs if availability of subspecies was different back then

I think you've answered your own question there, some species/subspecies were available in the past and so are more likely to be kept in the modern day due to breeding and replenishment of stock. This is also where studbooks come in, as one continent may house more of one species than another and so will be instructed to lose a minority.

There's no one answer, but the pattern is quite consistent across the examples you can list. Another more obvious reason is that certain species are just rarer than others and so cannot be as widespread in captivity - off the top of my head, Javan leopard etc.

 

[lintworm]

Back in the day getting animals wasn't quite like just shopping for anything on Amazon. It was far easier to acquire species from certain countries like South Africa, Namibia or Kenya and far harder for countries like Chad or Iran. Politics, history and geography play a big role. There is a reason why Italian zoos were acquiring relatively many animals from the Horn of Africa and why lemurs were very much a French speciality.

Many more species were kept in the past which are now absent and some of it just down to luck. Which (sub)species bred more widely or was championed (plenty of species are around becausd one or a few zoos breed them a lot, which ones is often more luck than science) was often somewhat random. Indochinese leopards were around until about 15 years ago in Europe, but leopard space is very much limited, so zoos started focusing on 4 with valuable populations (and Berlin experimented with Javan leopards, of which it kept the last remnants of the original population and imported a new pair).

 

[The_Leopard_Seal]

Some countries have strict laws regarding exporting animals which explains why some species like Ethiopian wolves and some Australian marsupials are rare in captivity.

 

[15399]

I understand that, but my question was-why arent they held instead of the other species?
For example, we could have had a.j heckii and aj. venaticus instead of south african and sudan cheetahs if availability of subspecies was different back then

Most reputable zoos these days are going to opt for a captive-bred specimen from another reputable zoo, rather than trying to import new wild individuals of a slightly different subspecies. If a zoo can easily source South African cheetahs from a neighboring zoo, why both going through the hassle of importing a different subspecies when the average zoo-goer won't know the difference? In many cases, species aren't even managed to the subspecies level, especially since most species in zoos will never be paired to a re-introduction effort and that what is or isn't a subspecies (or if there even is such a thing, for that matter) is a highly debated subject amongst scientists right now.