Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL

[Coelacanth18]

Back to artiodactyls:

Common Eland: discussed earlier in the thread - most zoos listed under species-level. Two (SDZSP and DAK) listed under Patterson's subspecies, no explanation why.

Sitatunga: All of Europe's are listed as the western subspecies while ours are all species-level, which is interesting.

Blue Wildebeest: also been discussed before. Some are listed under Eastern white-bearded (C. t. albojubatus) and some zoos do list them this way, but as far as I know there is no separate management of this subspecies so this might be an outdated practice? One zoo (Audubon) is listed under both.

Blesbok: A few non-AZA zoos are listed under the "Blesbok" (D. p. phillipsi) subspecies, the one AZA doesn't manage; are these listed correctly or just a result of name confusion?

Roan Antelope: has been discussed in the thread earlier. 3 zoos are listed under the cottoni subspecies, one of which (SDZSP) is also listed at species-level. I think the conclusion was similar to a couple of ones above, where maybe there used to be subspecies individuals around but the population has been managed as one generic unit for a while now.

Waterbuck: North Carolina Zoo is still listed under Defassa subspecies, which I suspect is incorrect. A lot of unaccredited zoos are listed under nominate which should maybe just be species-level (which is not an option in ZTL).

 

[Great Argus]

Sitatunga: All of Europe's are listed as the western subspecies while ours are all species-level, which is interesting.

The North American population is unclear, although suspected to be the same as Europe's. There is discussion about the complexity in the studbook. They are best left as generic.

Blesbok: A few non-AZA zoos are listed under the "Blesbok" (D. p. phillipsi) subspecies, the one AZA doesn't manage; are these listed correctly or just a result of name confusion?

The animal at Timbavati looks Blesbok, assuming it's a photo of their animal. Tennessee Safari Park I found a ZooInstitutes image showing Blesbok as well. There are a couple images from Beaver's Bend Safari Park as well but only showing the head so it's a bit trickier to say.
Furthermore, Hemker and Alabama Safari Park do not have the species as far as I can find. Also Wildlife World has Blesbok but for some reason isn't listed under either Blesbok or Bontebok.

So yeah it would appear there are some kicking around still.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Another interesting one - the Springhaas. The two zoos currently listed as current (Omaha and Wildlife World, the latter of which is based solely on USDA reports) are listed under Southern Springhare, rather than Springhare (no species or subspecies status). Does anyone know if this is accurate, or maybe just a result of the latter not showing up as an option for current holdings?

 

[Great Argus]

Another interesting one - the Springhaas. The two zoos currently listed as current (Omaha and Wildlife World, the latter of which is based solely on USDA reports) are listed under Southern Springhare, rather than Springhare (no species or subspecies status). Does anyone know if this is accurate, or maybe just a result of the latter not showing up as an option for current holdings?

USDA lists them as P. capensis, whether this accounts for the split and origin of the animal I've no idea. That's probably why they're listed as such though. There is a good chance they were imported from South Africa, but I have no proof where they came from.
USDA does generally follow most splits (rainbow lorikeet for example) so it's plausible but it's hard to say for sure here.

 

[JVM]

Furthermore, Hemker and Alabama Safari Park do not have the species as far as I can find. Also Wildlife World has Blesbok but for some reason isn't listed under either Blesbok or Bontebok.

Did Hemker formerly hold the species, is it a misidentification, or a complete mistake?

This is a particularly curious discussion as I had just been reading about Blesbok the other day and looking into their private holdings.

 

[Great Argus]

Did Hemker formerly hold the species, is it a misidentification, or a complete mistake?

Hemker previously held Bontebok/Blesbok yes, until some point in early or mid 2022. While I haven't been able to find any photos, the Bontebok studbook shows a handful of a animals sent to Hemker in 2017. The last of these died sometime in 2022.

Given the studbook lists them as having Bontebok, I would be inclined to say it is a mis-ID. It is entirely possible they may have had Blesbok at some point, but I do not have any proof.
Furthermore, their ZTL listing of current, cited "behind the scenes, information from 2023" would appear to be a completely false listing. Not only is it apparently the wrong subspecies, Hemker did not have the species at the stated time of the claim and do not currently hold Bontebok/Blesbok.

 

[Kudu21]

Common Eland: discussed earlier in the thread - most zoos listed under species-level. Two (SDZSP and DAK) listed under Patterson's subspecies, no explanation why.

That’s likely because that’s what both facilities refer to their animals as, which is just a hold over. It had been found that the North American population is a mix of Patterson’s and Cape, so species level would be appropriate for all NA listings.

Blue Wildebeest:

also been discussed before. Some are listed under Eastern white-bearded (C. t. albojubatus) and some zoos do list them this way, but as far as I know there is no separate management of this subspecies so this might be an outdated practice? One zoo (Audubon) is listed under both.

This is a case of where the AZA chose to focus on the eastern white-bearded subspecies, phased the nominate out to the private sector, then received animals back from the private sector and they were found to be hybrids. The whole population is managed at species level now.

Blesbok:

A few non-AZA zoos are listed under the "Blesbok" (D. p. phillipsi) subspecies, the one AZA doesn't manage; are these listed correctly or just a result of name confusion?

The animal at Timbavati looks Blesbok, assuming it's a photo of their animal. Tennessee Safari Park I found a ZooInstitutes image showing Blesbok as well. There are a couple images from Beaver's Bend Safari Park as well but only showing the head so it's a bit trickier to say.
Furthermore, Hemker and Alabama Safari Park do not have the species as far as I can find. Also Wildlife World has Blesbok but for some reason isn't listed under either Blesbok or Bontebok.

So yeah it would appear there are some kicking around still.

There were both bontebok and blesbok in AZA facilities up until fairly recently before the decision was made to focus solely on bontebok, with the last herds being at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park and North Carolina Zoo up until maybe 10-12 years ago? Blesbok are now quite prevalent in the private sector.

Roan Antelope:

has been discussed in the thread earlier. 3 zoos are listed under the cottoni subspecies, one of which (SDZSP) is also listed at species-level. I think the conclusion was similar to a couple of ones above, where maybe there used to be subspecies individuals around but the population has been managed as one generic unit for a while now.

Roan is an interesting one because while yes, species level for the whole NA population is probably the best practice, today the southern and eastern subspecies are usually lumped nowadays, leaving only two subspecies — West African and south-eastern. It would be interesting to see if there’s actually any West African blood in the population or if they are all descendants of what is now considered the south-eastern subspecies.

Waterbuck:

North Carolina Zoo is still listed under Defassa subspecies, which I suspect is incorrect. A lot of unaccredited zoos are listed under nominate which should maybe just be species-level (which is not an option in ZTL).

North Carolina does, in fact, have defassa waterbuck. They manage a castrated bachelor herd of waterbuck, and in addition to their ellipsen animals, they have animals from the Lake Victoria defassa waterbuck herd at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park (which is now down to one animal).

 

[Coelacanth18]

North Carolina does, in fact, have defassa waterbuck. They manage a castrated bachelor herd of waterbuck, and in addition to their ellipsen animals, they have animals from the Lake Victoria defassa waterbuck herd at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park (which is now down to one animal).

Ah, good to know. In that case it *is* listed incorrectly then, just not in the way I suspected; it should actually be listed under Lake Victoria defassa (K. e. adolfifriderici) with the Safari Park animal, rather than under K. e. defassa as it is now.

This is a case of where the AZA chose to focus on the eastern white-bearded subspecies, phased the nominate out to the private sector, then received animals back from the private sector and they were found to be hybrids. The whole population is managed at species level now.

I would think listing all at species level is probably the best way to go here then, since zoos still referring to them as "eastern white-bearded" may already have hybrid animals in practice and will be even more likely to in the future - though it's probably safe to list those zoos as former holders of eastern white-bearded at least, since they were presumably pure at that time.

 

[Coelacanth18]

And to finish off the mammals! (Or at least what I've noticed for them)

Springbok: one zoo (Fort Worth) is listed for the nominate subspecies while the rest are listed at species level. I remember there being something about managing Springbok to subspecies but I don't remember the details or whether that panned out?

Grant's Gazelle: all but one holder listed under the nominate subspecies. Was this a recent change? I don't remember that being how they were entered initially.

Blue Duiker: there are still two different species-level options for this one, and US animals are split between them.

Aoudad: is it accurate to say that any Aoudad in the US are pure subspecies?

 

[Great Argus]

Springbok: one zoo (Fort Worth) is listed for the nominate subspecies while the rest are listed at species level. I remember there being something about managing Springbok to subspecies but I don't remember the details or whether that panned out?

Springbok are/were managed as nominate in the AZA, though Busch Gardens may still have generic. Former holders will be complicated, especially outside the AZA.

Grant's Gazelle: all but one holder listed under the nominate subspecies. Was this a recent change? I don't remember that being how they were entered initially.

Personally I suspect they should all be generic - the population was established in the 50's and I doubt any sort of subspecies purity was managed, especially for the frequent back and forth of animals from the private trade. Furthermore as all subspecies occur in Kenya where most founders hailed from, I dare say it's pretty dicey to assume all are indeed nominate.

 

[Ituri]

Personally I suspect they should all be generic - the population was established in the 50's and I doubt any sort of subspecies purity was managed, especially for the frequent back and forth of animals from the private trade. Furthermore as all subspecies occur in Kenya where most founders hailed from, I dare say it's pretty dicey to assume all are indeed nominate.

FWIW, San Diego Wild Animal Park used to list their animals as Gazella granti roosevelti (which is a synonym of nominate). Whether that has any bearing on the actual identity of those animals, I don't know. As you said, it's probably best to treat them as generic.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Personally I suspect they should all be generic - the population was established in the 50's and I doubt any sort of subspecies purity was managed, especially for the frequent back and forth of animals from the private trade. Furthermore as all subspecies occur in Kenya where most founders hailed from, I dare say it's pretty dicey to assume all are indeed nominate.

FWIW, San Diego Wild Animal Park used to list their animals as Gazella granti roosevelti (which is a synonym of nominate). Whether that has any bearing on the actual identity of those animals, I don't know. As you said, it's probably best to treat them as generic.

Looking at those entries again, it appears someone used a 2020 studbook as the source for adding them to nominate - so unless that's what the studbook itself refers to them as, it seems like whoever did that made a false assumption about subspecies ranges?

 

[Great Argus]

Looking at those entries again, it appears someone used a 2020 studbook as the source for adding them to nominate - so unless that's what the studbook itself refers to them as, it seems like whoever did that made a false assumption about subspecies ranges?

That studbook does not mention or discuss subspecies whatsoever, and neither does the last SSP plan. So yeah my hunch would be false assumptions.

 

[Kudu21]

Springbok: one zoo (Fort Worth) is listed for the nominate subspecies while the rest are listed at species level. I remember there being something about managing Springbok to subspecies but I don't remember the details or whether that panned out?

The springbok population is actually a pretty recent import, with the current animals being descendants of direct imports from South Africa from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s. The studbook is managed at (nominate) subspecies level.

Blue Duiker: there are still two different species-level options for this one, and US animals are split between them.

There were historically both populations of nominate and bicolor in the US, and there are still purebred animals of both, but the program is being managed at species-level now, so there is an increasing number of hybrids.

Aoudad: is it accurate to say that any Aoudad in the US are pure subspecies?

Aoudad is an interesting one. The "Kordofan" animals imported from Sudan are purebred animals; however, they are likely not actually blanei but rather sahariensis, and interestingly enough, what testing has been done suggests that most if not all of the other aoudad in the US are, somehow, also sahariensis. That said, I think species level is the safest option. The aoudad program is dead in the water, so I doubt any further genetic testing will be done to confirm anything else.

 

[Coelacanth18]

The springbok population is actually a pretty recent import, with the current animals being descendants of direct imports from South Africa from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s. The studbook is managed at (nominate) subspecies level.

Is this just applying to AZA facilities then, and springbok outside that managed population could be anything? Or are all captive springbok in the US derived from that import?

There were historically both populations of nominate and bicolor in the US, and there are still purebred animals of both, but the program is being managed at species-level now, so there is an increasing number of hybrids.

Yes, but the actual problem is that there are two species-level options, aside from the fact that some are subspecific

Blue duiker (no species or subspecies status) (Philantomba monticola (Syn.: Cephalophus monticola) (sensu lato))
Blue duiker (Piti) (no subspecies-status) (Philantomba monticola (Syn.: Cephalophus monticola))

Checking it again, I think it's pretty clear all US animals should be the second one; far as I know there's no question as to them being Blue Duikers, and the first option was initially just a handful of former European holdings that mostly mention hybrid animals.

 

[Great Argus]

Is this just applying to AZA facilities then, and springbok outside that managed population could be anything? Or are all captive springbok in the US derived from that import?

There were Springbok around still at the time, but far as I can tell that population included both subspecies and things were muddled. SDZSP subsequently imported nominate and that became the managed population. All the AZA animals except for a couple at Busch Gardens are marked as nominate in the last studbook (several years ago). Personally I suspect a lot of the generic/unknown animals were offloaded into the private trade as pure ones became available as per the hoofstock norm, though overrepresented and unneeded pure animals get sent out too. No telling if other imports occurred as well. Unless someone knows otherwise non-AZA should probably be generic.

 

[Kudu21]

Is this just applying to AZA facilities then, and springbok outside that managed population could be anything? Or are all captive springbok in the US derived from that import?

There were Springbok around still at the time, but far as I can tell that population included both subspecies and things were muddled. SDZSP subsequently imported nominate and that became the managed population. All the AZA animals except for a couple at Busch Gardens are marked as nominate in the last studbook (several years ago). Personally I suspect a lot of the generic/unknown animals were offloaded into the private trade as pure ones became available as per the hoofstock norm, though overrepresented and unneeded pure animals get sent out too. No telling if other imports occurred as well. Unless someone knows otherwise non-AZA should probably be generic.

I think it is safe to assume generic for outside of the AZA, although even some whole non-AZA herds are derived from the SDZ/SDZSP/Pittsburgh imports, including Tanganyika and West Texas Safari. Wildlife World Zoo seems to have some animals descended from animals around before the most recent imports, but those are the only ones I have found so far.

Yes, but the actual problem is that there are two species-level options, aside from the fact that some are subspecific

Blue duiker (no species or subspecies status) (Philantomba monticola (Syn.: Cephalophus monticola) (sensu lato))
Blue duiker (Piti) (no subspecies-status) (Philantomba monticola (Syn.: Cephalophus monticola))

Checking it again, I think it's pretty clear all US animals should be the second one; far as I know there's no question as to them being Blue Duikers, and the first option was initially just a handful of former European holdings that mostly mention hybrid animals.

Ah, I see! My bad Yes, there is no question that the American animals are blue duikers. They are also descendants from more recent imports (Pennsylvania State University in the late 1980s and the San Diego Zoo in the late 1990s and early 2000s).

 

[Coelacanth18]

Guess I've more or less covered mammals - on to some birds.

Ostrich: a handful of zoos are listed for the nominate subspecies (North African), all with a note added saying "UA - listed as nominate subspecies S. c. camelus in personal comm. (7/2024), but AZA TAG says there are no pure nominate subspecies in North America". Seems like some kind of disagreement there... I'm pretty sure S. c. camelus isn't managed, but I'm not sure if any individuals themselves exist?

Lesser Rhea: the Frank Buck Zoo got listed under Lesser Rhea - which is the zoo's ID for the bird - but I'm skeptical of there being any Lesser Rheas in US zoos?

Spur-winged Goose: 5 US zoos listed under the northern/nominate subspecies and 2 listed under the black (niger) subspecies; all have a noted of "Visit 07/2024" and unexplained male-female numbers, despite being scattered around the country; I saw this "info laundering" done with a few other bird species like kiwi, bustard and flamingos (most of which has been cleaned up now).

Radjah Shelduck: one zoo (San Antonio) listed under nominate subspecies based on signage; any reason to believe there might be subspecific birds in US zoos?

Cinnamon Teal: most are listed at species level; it seems plausible to me that US zoos would have the local northern subspecies (S. c. septentrionalium) but that would be more of an assumption than presumed fact maybe?

Guineafowl: As discussed previously, several US zoos sign their Crested Guineafowl as Kenyan / East African (Guttera pucherani) and this seems to be an AZA-specific population, but I'm not sure whether it's safe to assume all are this type?

Additionally, the SDZSP is listed under the Reichenow's subspecies of Helmeted Guineafowl (I believe they are signed this way); is there any current or past validity to this, and does it mean anything for the greater population in US zoos?

Greater Prairie-Chicken: Brookfield is listed under both species level and the local pinnatus subspecies; the original info for the subspecies listing was wiped and replaced with "The facility does not keep any subspecies"; however, given that the only other living subspecies is Attwater's (which is from a limited area and usually referred to by its subspecies name), I'd think the animals at Brookfield actually are pinnatus? Or are they just a generic/unknown stock?

Great Argus: Have seen conflicting information (and current listings reflect this) about whether they are all nominate subspecies, all generic/unknown stock, or both.

 

[Kudu21]

Guineafowl:
Additionally, the SDZSP is listed under the Reichenow's subspecies of Helmeted Guineafowl (I believe they are signed this way); is there any current or past validity to this, and does it mean anything for the greater population in US zoos?

Unfortunately, the last Reichenow’s helmeted guineafowl at the SDZSP have passed away, and, thus, there are no more wild-type helmeted guineafowl in the US. The founders of the Reichenow’s population were imported directly from Tanzania in the 1990s, and they were managed separately from the domestic stock (which mostly come from private breeders).

 

[Great Argus]

Ostrich: a handful of zoos are listed for the nominate subspecies (North African), all with a note added saying "UA - listed as nominate subspecies S. c. camelus in personal comm. (7/2024), but AZA TAG says there are no pure nominate subspecies in North America". Seems like some kind of disagreement there... I'm pretty sure S. c. camelus isn't managed, but I'm not sure if any individuals themselves exist?

A few zoos may sign as such, but very few if any actually are around. Proof was questionable to non-existent last I looked into it. Ostrich is not managed by the AZA in any form, and birds are likely generic more often than not.

Lesser Rhea: the Frank Buck Zoo got listed under Lesser Rhea - which is the zoo's ID for the bird - but I'm skeptical of there being any Lesser Rheas in US zoos?

All I'm seeing for them in photos is Greater - a few other zoos apparently label Lesser too but same story for the ones I've looked at. Far as I was aware Lesser is gone from NA.

Guineafowl: As discussed previously, several US zoos sign their Crested Guineafowl as Kenyan / East African (Guttera pucherani) and this seems to be an AZA-specific population, but I'm not sure whether it's safe to assume all are this type?

I believe all are East African, especially far as the AZA goes. The three Crested species are visually distinguishable, and i don't recall seeing one that didn't have a red face in NA. Could be out there privately, but easily sorted out with a photo of the head & neck.