Indochinese tigers

cornu aspersum

cornu aspersum

Well-Known Member
I don't know if this is the right place to post so please feel free to remove it if needed. I'm just curious about wether there are any Indochinese tigers currently living in European and by extension north American zoos. Thank very much.

(This is also my first post so I don't know much.)
 
Historically some North American zoos were said to have Indochinese tigers. Then, there was the taxonomic reshuffling a few years ago, and they were reclassified as Malayan. I think I've seen one or two places since that have listed their tigers as Indochinese (there's a few listings in ZIMS), but they probably are just sticking with old taxonomy and mean Malayan. (That being said, there's also the proposed tiger taxonomy which combines all of the mainland subspecies into one subspecies, so who really knows these days)
 
Aardwolf said:
Historically some North American zoos were said to have Indochinese tigers. Then, there was the taxonomic reshuffling a few years ago, and they were reclassified as Malayan. I think I've seen one or two places since that have listed their tigers as Indochinese (there's a few listings in ZIMS), but they probably are just sticking with old taxonomy and mean Malayan. (That being said, there's also the proposed tiger taxonomy which combines all of the mainland subspecies into one subspecies, so who really knows these days)
Click to expand...
Yeah it can be confusing since most zoos who like tierpark Berlin actually had Malayans despite listing them as Indochinese tigers. I'd say a couple of zoos in Thailand might have them.
 
To the best of my knowledge, AZA zoos several years ago reclassified their so-called Indochinese as Malayan (after the above-mentioned taxonomic split). However some non-accredited zoos (such as Out Of Africa) continued to list them as Indochinese (though I suspect even if they are the new Malayan that they are in fact hybrids because Malayan are so rare in USA that I can't see how a non-AZA / non-ZAA facility could get one).
 
Arizona Docent said:
To the best of my knowledge, AZA zoos several years ago reclassified their so-called Indochinese as Malayan (after the above-mentioned taxonomic split). However some non-accredited zoos (such as Out Of Africa) continued to list them as Indochinese (though I suspect even if they are the new Malayan that they are in fact hybrids because Malayan are so rare in USA that I can't see how a non-AZA / non-ZAA facility could get one).
Click to expand...
I'd say you're right. I wonder if there is the possibility of American or European zoos receiving Indochinese tigers for breeding since their apparently the least represented subspecies in breeding programs(at least according to wikipedia).
 
Rohin said:
I'd say you're right. I wonder if there is the possibility of American or European zoos receiving Indochinese tigers for breeding since their apparently the least represented subspecies in breeding programs(at least according to wikipedia).
Click to expand...
It is actually something of a miracle that the AZA has enough space to maintain three distinct subspecies. I would say there is no room to add a fourth.
 
Arizona Docent said:
To the best of my knowledge, AZA zoos several years ago reclassified their so-called Indochinese as Malayan (after the above-mentioned taxonomic split). However some non-accredited zoos (such as Out Of Africa) continued to list them as Indochinese (though I suspect even if they are the new Malayan that they are in fact hybrids because Malayan are so rare in USA that I can't see how a non-AZA / non-ZAA facility could get one).
Click to expand...
Can anyone explain this taxonomic change to me? Is this the one that classified mainland and island subspecies into just two separate groups? I.e 'P.t. sondaica' and 'P.t. tigris'
 
Corbett477 said:
Can anyone explain this taxonomic change to me? Is this the one that classified mainland and island subspecies into just two separate groups? I.e 'P.t. sondaica' and 'P.t. tigris'
Click to expand...
No, it was before that. Although some people are saying there are now only two as you state, in which case the argument about Indochinese vs Malayan would be unnecessary. However, for a long time there were 7 (I think?) subspecies recognized. Then (I forget the year - early 2000's) they did a dna study using not only living tigers but also museum specimens of extinct subspecies and determined that what was formerly classified as the Indochinese tiger is actually two distinct subspecies, with the those on the Malay peninsula being a new form, ie Malayan tiger. It was then discovered that all so-called Indochinese in USA were the Malayan form.
 
Arizona Docent said:
No, it was before that. Although some people are saying there are now only two as you state, in which case the argument about Indochinese vs Malayan would be unnecessary. However, for a long time there were 7 (I think?) subspecies recognized. Then (I forget the year - early 2000's) they did a dna study using not only living tigers but also museum specimens of extinct subspecies and determined that what was formerly classified as the Indochinese tiger is actually two distinct subspecies, with the those on the Malay peninsula being a new form, ie Malayan tiger. It was then discovered that all so-called Indochinese in USA were the Malayan form.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top