@MonkeyBat These are rescued individuals from the private trade. The zoo has a sign about although they aren't subspecies specific they feel it's important to make space for rescues.
I find, to say the least, strange that one call tiger as "Generic tiger" but don't call every other species of animal in the world as, say, "Generic great-spotted woodpecker" or "Generic white seabream" if they're not assinged to a subspecies. The extreme obsession with big cats, and especially tigers, predominant in this site, always bugged me. It's just fine to call a tiger as "Tiger"
@Kakapo it isn't because "they're not assigned to a subspecies", it is because they are hybrids between different subspecies, and because there specifically are breeding programmes for the different subspecies of tigers (or giraffes). It's got nothing to do with Andrew Swales' "snobbery" either
@Andrew Swales out of curiosity, is it the word "generic" specifically you think is conceited, or is it the entire concept of distinguishing tigers who are of pure identified subspecies from tigers that are not? For example, is using the term "non-subspecific" different?
