Leipzig keep the 'Angolan/[i]bleyenberghi' population (which I understand is not now necessarily believed to be pure - except that of course it might not even be a valid subspecies so they are pure. Does anyone remember when lions were easy?).
Leipzig keep the \'Angolan/bleyenberghi\' population (which I understand is not now necessarily believed to be pure - except that of course it might not even be a valid subspecies so they are pure. Does anyone remember when lions were easy?).
i remember. It was asiatic of african, you knew were you stood.(maybe barbary too) now you've got:
Asian
Barbary
West African
Northeast Congo
Massai
South west/Kantonga
Angolan.
So confusing
i remember. It was asiatic of african, you knew were you stood.(maybe barbary too) now you've got:
Asian
Barbary
West African
Northeast Congo
Massai
South west/Kantonga
Angolan.
So confusing
I wouldn't mind if we definitely had a whole bunch of subspecies - we're used to that with tigers, leopards etc. I just wish people could settle on how many there are! Much I like a bit of taxonomic switcheroo, this one's been ongoing a bit too long!
its true. we all know there are 6 living sub-species of tiger (unless your the director of zoo berlin, no need to go into details there) but with lions is just far too awkward to even bother with the current situation
