Wouldnt that explain a large number of the people on the forum!
Just the south australians
genetic theory
- Thread starter jay
- Start date
Just the south australians
I think in the case of the Arabian Oryx it was something like 5.4. and only two or three females were breeding(but the Sheik who donated them still had a private herd of his own- so the total was actually greater)
Another species with a very low founder base was Pere Davids deer- variously recorded as either 18,16,or 14 animals which were sent from the various European Zoos to the Duke of Bedford's Woburn Park.(Berlin Zoo wouldn't contribute theirs but they no doubt died out) The sexes were almost even, and one or two were calves, so the initial breeders in the Woburn herd would have been less than the total - say a dominant stag and about six breeding age females?
Last edited:
As Mark mentioned above, I think only eleven Mongolian Horses eventually reached Europe- the original total captured was something like 28 but a number died on the long and gruelling overland trip. I believe ONE horse carried some domestic blood so his/her descendants are impure. Some places, like Prague Zoo, were originally known for the purity of their stock, the hallmarks being stiff upright mane, correct colour and conformation, and a strange darker 'dagger-like' marking on each side of the forequarters (this marking is even shown in cave paintings of the Prezwalski.)
Signs of domestication do still crop up in some individuals, usually a longer, floppy mane and/or a 'foxy' (reddish) colouration.
I've been reading up a bit on this - fascinating subject.
When it is possible to actually trace the ancestry of animals in different zoos, it is surprising how few founders were involved.
Australian zoologist Dr. Peter Crowcroft put it this way,"One or two females of a species may have reproduced under conditions regarded by other females of that species as unsuitable (males are much easier to please - they require only food and a female in the right condition). Such zoo-born young,growing up in the zoo, lack the behavioural inhibitions of their non-breeding aunties, and so a zoo stock is born.The next generation is then distributed to other zoos."
When it is possible to actually trace the ancestry of animals in different zoos, it is surprising how few founders were involved.
Australian zoologist Dr. Peter Crowcroft put it this way,"One or two females of a species may have reproduced under conditions regarded by other females of that species as unsuitable (males are much easier to please - they require only food and a female in the right condition). Such zoo-born young,growing up in the zoo, lack the behavioural inhibitions of their non-breeding aunties, and so a zoo stock is born.The next generation is then distributed to other zoos."
This leads to genetic drif where the animals in zoos become selected for life in zoos, eg they might be more ameniable to humans being around then other sof their kin. This then affects their ability to live in the wild. Which is why it is important that as many founders as possible exist. After doing a bit of research on the net I still haven't really got an answer to my original question, how many young should an individual have to ensure the maximum chance of passing on all the genes that it has. Maybe there isn't one other than - as many as possible.