King Cheetah.
- Thread starter Dawn B
- Start date
easytigger
Well-Known Member
King Cheetahs are merely colour mutations of cheetahs, research now shows that they can be found in mixed litters along side 'normal' cheetahs
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah[/ame]
Last edited:
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
Seriously?
Yes seriously, if its a normal cheetah of the same species just like the white Tiger, why not? Do they have any health issues associated with the colour morph?
I have read that they are bigger, and have other differences, Id be interested to hear why they would be "boycotted" in a distinctly opposite way to which the white Tiger is, especially now Im told they occur naturally in the wild.
King cheetahs are the result of a mutation just like white tigers, i.e., not separate taxonomic entities. They are not a benefitial mutation because then you would see them regularly in nature. 'Conserving' white tigers or king cheetahs is done to pleasure humans, not for nature. It's like someone trying to 'save' animals with albinism, dwarfism or other abnormalities. Cheetahs and tigers have enough problems as it is and spending time/money on abnormalities like king cheetahs and white tigers therefore is questionable. I also think you will find that as many people oppose white tigers as oppose king cheetahs.
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
Thank you Condor, I do agree entirely with your post, I just found it a little hypocritical for people to claim white Tigers are ok to breed, but when I mentioned King Cheetahs, which I did read to be the same species and of appearance that would be none detrimental to its survival, spoke of as a big no no!!
I kinda wish those that oppose the breeding of white Tigers would of stepped into the Tiger thread to offer their opinion, it did seem to me that some members are very select in what "abnormalities" are allowed and which are not.
White tigers are WAY more inbred than king cheetahs. If breeding cheetahs was as easy as breeding tigers, then we might have a similar situation. But cheetahs are difficult to breed and require special accomodations with a fairly large group. Most king cheetahs come from the DeWildt Center in South Africa, which does a very good job of tracking genetics - as far as I know they do not inbreed by matching kings with kings. Plus, king cheetahs are not all descended from one individual who was bred with his daughter, as is the case with white tigers. So there really is a difference which is why I have no problem with king cheetahs. (Of course the fact that it's my favorite animal may make me just a bit biased 
).
To answer your original question, others on this forum have stated the only king cheetah in Europe is in a zoo in Germany.
).To answer your original question, others on this forum have stated the only king cheetah in Europe is in a zoo in Germany.
Sure? Perhaps I remember wrong but didn't all king cheetahs in captivity descend from three individuals (one male and two sisters)? As the 'king gene' is recessive like that for the white tiger the only way they can get kings is if they breed male and female that both originate from the three founders. That isn't much better than the situation for the white tigers. When combined with the population bottleneck the cheetah already had experianced it is likely the king cheetahs are at least as inbred as the white tigers. Choosing a few animals with desirable king genes from a species that already had a low genetic diversity (even inbreeding depression) can only lead to one thing.
It also still presents a problem because as said earlier cheetahs have enough problems as it is. Spending time/money on 'saving' abnormalities like king cheetahs instead of spending them on saving the cheetah species therefore is questionable.
taun
Well-Known Member
As so many people have already mentioned it is not a separate sub-species, so why should we conserve it?
If it appears in pure bred animals fair enough but to treat it like a species/sub-species is wrong.
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
Well it would increase the gene pool if Kings are unrelated wouldnt it? Perhaps its the name that alienates people? I meant if it was a "Cheetah" and not a "King" Cheetah, folk may not see it as different?
If Kings are the same and suffer no problems as a result of their markings why not include them? They are occurring naturally in the wild which tells me they are a normal Cheetah in every way.
Thanks all for your info, most interesting.
First of all, the King Cheetah is not a colour mutation, it's a pattern mutation.
Because the gene appears naturally in the wild, the gene is therefore valuable to the global gene pool. And (as has already been stated) because of the problems breeding cheetahs in captivity, wasting time and space by deliberately producing Kings is not good for the conservation of the species (particularly if it's at the expense of under-represented animals).
Having said that, if a King appears in a litter in a zoo, the animal should not be treated differently to any other captive cheetah.
Hix
Because the gene appears naturally in the wild, the gene is therefore valuable to the global gene pool. And (as has already been stated) because of the problems breeding cheetahs in captivity, wasting time and space by deliberately producing Kings is not good for the conservation of the species (particularly if it's at the expense of under-represented animals).
Having said that, if a King appears in a litter in a zoo, the animal should not be treated differently to any other captive cheetah.
Hix
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
Well excuse me, but I think you know what I meant!First of all, the King Cheetah is not a colour mutation, it's a pattern mutation.
Because the gene appears naturally in the wild, the gene is therefore valuable to the global gene pool. And (as has already been stated) because of the problems breeding cheetahs in captivity, wasting time and space by deliberately producing Kings is not good for the conservation of the species (particularly if it's at the expense of under-represented animals).
Having said that, if a King appears in a litter in a zoo, the animal should not be treated differently to any other captive cheetah.
Hix
Can you tell me who said they should specifically be bred just because of the colour, sorry PATTERN?
Wasnt me, I asked if there were any here, and having established now they are the same as the regular Cat, why the animosity towards them by some people given they think its ok to breed white Tigers who suffer genetic deformities and colour associated issues?I guess Im playing devils advocate here.
I think you miss my point. I never implied they should be specifically used for breeding, I asked why they shouldnt be and why they are perhaps not if its the same species. Having established they are indeed the same species, I cant see why there is negativity towards them, when they could improve the genepool if from unrelated animals. Do you see where I am coming from?
taun
Well-Known Member
Can you tell me who said they should specifically be bred just because of the colour, sorry PATTERN?
I think you miss my point. I never implied they should be specifically used for breeding, I asked why they shouldnt be and why they are perhaps not if its the same species. Having established they are indeed the same species, I cant see why there is negativity towards them, when they could improve the genepool if from unrelated animals. Do you see where I am coming from?
You asked the question was there anything being done to boost there numbers in the opening post, thus suggesting you thought it was a different species.
However if you read eveyones post, there is nothing against king cheetah's that appear in the breedign program. The problem myself and some members on these boards are that if zoo's are breeding them soley to show this pattern and educating the public about the "king" cheetah (similar to what is happening with "White" tigers).
This is were my problem lies with "king" cheetahs.
taun
Well-Known Member
I think I best quote your original post.
This is were it got my back up, after the "white" tiger debate.
Last edited:
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
I think I best quote your original post.
This is were it got my back up, afther the "white" tiger debate.
Why was that question not valid, Im confused? I had read as I said, that they were "different" bigger and had other differences with normal Cheetahs, which is why I asked the question. I THEN said later having read:
on here, why were they being excluded and what was peoples problem with them if they are the same species, I think you perhaps may of not read the posts correctly and have thought I have implied something I havent.
I agree entirely with your reasoning in relation to the white Tiger, but they can suffer problems because of their colour, and also do not occur naturally in the wild, but because the KC does occur naturally and without any problems relating to its genetic make up, I couldnt see why people were "anti" KC which appeared to be the case with some.
taun
Well-Known Member
I shall again quote your ORIGINAL post, can you not see this? You are specifically asking are they breeding "king" cheetahs?
If you were not, then maybe you should of said so in the first place.
I don't want to get into another "white" tiger debate, but you have yet show your sources on this matter, all I have seen is problems that they have due to inbreeding.
Again am not anti "king" cheetah, as the are a variation just like "white" tigers however I disagree with breeding just "king" as there not a different sub-species.
Dawn B
Well-Known Member
Oh dear oh dear Taun.
IF you read my posts correctly, you will see that WHEN I was told that they occur naturally and are NOT "different" that I said why were they not being included in breeding programs? NOWHERE after finding out they were the SAME species did I said they should be specifically breed to conserve them alone or as a separate entity!!