Last edited:
Is it true all captive Sumatran Tigers descend from just 37 wild caught individuals?

37 is actually quite a good number. 20 randomly selected wild individuals should contain 95% of the genetic variation of population and is regarded as the optimal minimum for setting up a breeding program. Of course many programs have had to be set up with fewer animals.
 
I thought it was closer to eight! so I agree thirty seven isn't so bad. I always thought 50 was the optimal minimum for most mammals though?
 
I thought it was closer to eight! so I agree thirty seven isn't so bad. I always thought 50 was the optimal minimum for most mammals though?
My source is ‘Viable Populstions for Conservation’ ed.Soule. Of course the assumption is that the population will be rapidly expanded from that point, into the hundreds for most serious programs.
 
Actually, I remember learning that in order for a population to survive indefinitely, a minimum of 500 adults is needed, because below that natural selection ceases to effect the population and the species ceases to evolve.

Species with considerably less than 50 founders can survive for many years, but those that reproduce fast and have larger litters
(like mice)
recover faster whereas those that reproduce slowly with only one or two offspring each time are more susceptible to become extinct because of the long time to recover from the loss of genetic diversity.

:p

Hix
 
Actually, I remember learning that in order for a population to survive indefinitely, a minimum of 500 adults is needed, because below that natural selection ceases to effect the population and the species ceases to evolve.


In a sense, yes. With each generation we loose genetic variation but the rate of loss declines the larger the population. At the same time genetic mutation occurs constantly, increasing genetic diversity. 500 individuals is the point at which creation of diversity through mutation begins to exceed loss. Note this is effective ie breeding individuals, not young, old or infertile animals.

However most conservation programs do not attempt to have a population that can "last forever" in captivity as this is very expensive. Rather the objective is usually expressed as something like "X percent genetic variation after Y years requires Z number of animals".

Species with considerably less than 50 founders can survive for many years, but those that reproduce fast and have larger litters
(like mice)

recover faster whereas those that reproduce slowly with only one or two offspring each time are more susceptible to become extinct because of the long time to recover from the loss of genetic diversity.

As genetic variation is only lost after a breeding event (ignoring the loss of non-breeding individuals), species with a short generation time require more individuals in the population for the population to retain a required genetic diversity over a given length of time than a species with a long generation time, simply because the long generation time species does not have to breed as often over a set period of time.​
 
What do you mean by "a required genetic diversity"?

:p

Hix
 
What do you mean by "a required genetic diversity"?

:p

Hix
The plan might call for, say, 85% of the population genetic diversity in 10 years, Actually I can't recall any program that I have seen that calls for less than 85% not to say that does not occur. Depending on the circumstances population may refer to the wild population or the captive population.
 
Auckland Zoo Sumatran Tiger - Molek (2000-2018)

Auckland Zoo's Sumatran tigress Molek has been euthanised, aged 18 years.

Molek was born at Wellington Zoo 10/01/2000, and moved to Hamilton Zoo in 2001; before being transferred to Auckland Zoo in 2006, where she gave birth to 2.1 cubs in 2008.

Molek was exceptionally popular with the visitors. Last time I was there, there were crowds of 4-5 people deep to see her and her son, Bernai, at feeding time.

It's been a difficult couple of years for Auckland Zoo with several big cats been euthanised due to age related issues:

2017:

Sheeka (African lion) 1999 - 2017
Jaka (Sumatran tiger) 2000 - 2017
Anubis (Cheetah) 2005 - 2017
Osiris (Cheetah) 2005 - 2017

2018:

Kura (African lion) 1998 - 2018
Amira (African lion) 2001 - 2018
Molek (Sumatran tiger) 2000 - 2018
 
This seems like the most appropriate place to announce the following news.
The pair of lions at Billabong Zoo (“Milo” and “Misty”), which were imported from South Africa, produced two male cubs in August.
One of the cubs died a few days later, and the other cub, “Amari” is currently being handraised due to complications.
Here is the extensive story...
Billabong Zoo
 
As reported on the news page, Melbourne Zoo’s three male lions have moved to Monarto Zoo for breeding. The zoo wil recieve two adolescents from Werribee.
Some interesting changes.:)
 
So Monarto's lion population, if I'm following the recent changes is:

Males: Inkosi (Tiombe son), Jelani, (Tiombe son), Mlinzi (Kiamba son), and newcomers from Melbourne Kito, Kashka and Kubwa

Females: Tiombe, Zalika, Kiamba, Nia (Tiombe daughter), Husani (Tiombe daughter), Makena (Kiamba daughter)

This leaves only Nia, Husani and Mekena as reproductive age females, but I believe they are related to the Melbourne males through their grandmother's line. I wonder if further lionesses will be imported from overseas.
 
So Monarto's lion population, if I'm following the recent changes is:

Males: Inkosi (Tiombe son), Jelani, (Tiombe son), Mlinzi (Kiamba son), and newcomers from Melbourne Kito, Kashka and Kubwa

Females: Tiombe, Zalika, Kiamba, Nia (Tiombe daughter), Husani (Tiombe daughter), Makena (Kiamba daughter)

This leaves only Nia, Husani and Mekena as reproductive age females, but I believe they are related to the Melbourne males through their grandmother's line. I wonder if further lionesses will be imported from overseas.

That's correct @Nisha

Kura (1998) > Kuchami (2001) > Johari (2003) > Melbourne Males (2015)
Kura (1998) > Amali (2001) > Kiamba (2004) > Makena (2013)
Kura (1998) > Tiombe (2004) > Husani/Nia (2013)

Not the best genetic match in my opinion, when there are plenty of other options for males in the region. In my opinion they would have been better off sending two or more of the males from Lazerus and Maya's 2016 litter to Monarto for breeding and breeding them with Jahzara (2011) and Makena (2013). Husani and Nia are the granddaughters of Lazerus so ideally shouldn't breed with his offspring. Monarto has a larger exhibit than Mogo so could have better accommodated breeding (Lazerus's son, Baako and Jahzara have been paired at Mogo).

I don't think it'd be possible to integrate unrelated lionesses to Monarto's lioness pride so unless they were to hold two prides I doubt this would happen. Monarto already have two prides as they also have three males in a separate pride (son of Kiamba and sons of Tiombe).
 
A number of articles regarding the import of the three male lions by Monarto Zoo, including this one issued by Monarto, refer to Monarto as having six lionesses (not seven):

Three new lions roar into Monarto Zoo

Does anyone know what happened to the seventh lioness?

Last I was aware, they had Kiamba (2004), Zalika (2004), Tiombe (2004), Kibira (2004), Husani (2013), Nia (2013) and Makena (2013)?
 
A number of articles regarding the import of the three male lions by Monarto Zoo, including this one issued by Monarto, refer to Monarto as having six lionesses (not seven):

Three new lions roar into Monarto Zoo

Does anyone know what happened to the seventh lioness?

Last I was aware, they had Kiamba (2004), Zalika (2004), Tiombe (2004), Kibira (2004), Husani (2013), Nia (2013) and Makena (2013)?

Probably a media mistake. ;)
 
I don’t know specifics, I was told by a volunteer when asking about the lion pride.
 
Back
Top