Pure Bengal tigers in zoos

Davdhole

Davdhole

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I heard that all Bengal tigers in zoos (or at least in the US) are actually Bengal hybrids. Something else that stuck out to me is that they don't seem to be common in zoos. It's usually Amur, Sumatran, or Malayan. There may be white Bengals (assuming those are possibly pure), but no standard ones, at least that I know of. Bengal tigers are probably the most well-known tiger subspecies and being the second largest, would be impressive to exhibit and for people to see in person, but why do they seem so absent? I'm sure one reason is due to conservation, considering the Malayans and Sumatrans are critically endangered, but Amurs are listed as endangered as are Bengals, yet still seem to be more common than Bengal tigers. Are there any zoos that have Bengals?
 
There are no pure Indian Tigers left in western zoos. All the tigers within India are pure.

There may be "a few" - at least one anyway - pure Indian Tigers in other Asian zoos. Zoo Negara in Malaysia got three white tigers direct from India in 2013 which are pure (Indian zoos have not hybridised their white tigers with other subspecies), and they still have at least one I think. I don't know if they ever bred from them though.

Other white tigers in southeast Asia (e.g. in the Indonesian theme-parks) are probably from western zoos rather than from India and would not be pure Indian Tigers.
 
I just had a look at the CITES trade database. There are only twelve records for live tigers being exported from India between 1978 and now.

The last record is the three animals to Zoo Negara in 2013 which I mentioned above. Prior to that are two animals in 2001 to Libya (which sounds like a dodgy record), two animals each to Malaysia in 1998 and 1999 (probably the same two animals with a duplicated record), two animals to Indonesia in 1993, and so forth. There are a couple of records for Europe (1990 Italy and 1984 Finland), a couple for the USA (1978 and 1988), and one for Oman (1992).

The European records are a bit iffy for me as well. The Italy one has the origin as Italy (i.e. Italy to India to Italy, which makes no sense) and it is for the purpose of "Personal" (as opposed to "Zoo", for example). And for Finland, Zootierliste has no zoos for that country under its listings for either Bengal or non-subspecific tigers.
 
Last edited:
birdsandbats said:
Within the AZA at least, almost all privately kept Tigers are "Bengal". This probably makes it the most common type of Tiger kept in American zoos.
Click to expand...
The title of this thread should really be 'Indian' rather than 'Bengal'. 'Bengal' is a common misnomer used for generic mixes, which is what this description mainly refers to.
 
Davdhole said:
It's usually Amur, Sumatran, or Malayan
Click to expand...

That's because these are the three breeding programs operated in North America.

Davdhole said:
Bengal tigers are probably the most well-known tiger subspecies and being the second largest, would be impressive to exhibit and for people to see in person, but why do they seem so absent?
Click to expand...

Because there are already three breeding programs, there's not enough room for a fourth.

Amur only number in the hundreds in the wild, there are lots of opportunities to bring in new blood from Europe/Russia, and are well-suited for cold-weather zoos. Sumatrans are an international program supported by Western zoos globally and are one of the more threatened and genetically distinct populations. I'm not as clear on the reasons for keeping Malayan, but I believe they are less numerous than Indian both in the wild and in native-range zoos.

There may also be historical reasons for the three we have, but I'm not well-versed enough on import or zoo history to comment.
 
The Bengal is so well-known because so many zoos label their tigers as such, even when they aren't. White tigers in zoos are all mixes, as well.
 
Given the nature of their numbers in the wild Amur, Malayan, and Sumatra Tigers have become popular species in US Zoos as means of breeding programs. Bengals given not as threaded have been weaned out as having value they say as display animal. Sad yes. The focus is of less variety of species and heavier concentration on few species with breeding programs between zoos to ensure survival of a species. That is why one can go to various zoos through out the US and see nothing but Amur, Malayan, or Sumatra Tigers. Kind of boring actually. Back in the day I remember very enjoyable visits to Cincinnati Zoo to seeing one of the greatest cats kept there. On white tiger note, I have just been to see white tigers at Secret Garden in Las Vegas now 2x's in a months time. I remember back in the early 70's white tigers sought by the Smithsonian National Zoo was first to bring them to America. Later I have seen them in Cincinnati, and Fort Worth Zoo zoos as regular display cats. Both Cleveland, and Cheyenne Mountain Zoo had visiting white tigers at one time I have seen there. Personally I love the variation of white tiger from the orange phase of bengal tiger. Only fortunately given the inbreeding of white tigers, one zoo man label the white tiger as a misfit and not worthy as a display animal! Indeed the white tigers at the Secret Garden one can see the difference as several cats are almost clearly without stripes, and you can see somewhat of disfigured coloration in the facial areas. Though going back to the original white tiger as a natural occurrence within the species genetrically, then how come doesn't differentiate the black leopard (black panther) as a misfit from the normal phase of the orange leopard, or perhaps a black jaguar from normal coloration jaguar. Then there's the rare occurrence of the King Cheetah (which I've seen at Cincinnati). Sadly value is being placed on the rarity of a species and what would seem commoner species having no display value, Irony is then one can justify continuing to have these wonderful animals in zoos and being able to keep breeding them. Mind you I'm not at all against zoo's. I have been to over 50 zoo's throughtout US and Canada, and aquarium as well. I love all tigers.
 
Chlidonias said:
There are no pure Indian Tigers left in western zoos. All the tigers within India are pure.

There may be "a few" - at least one anyway - pure Indian Tigers in other Asian zoos. Zoo Negara in Malaysia got three white tigers direct from India in 2013 which are pure (Indian zoos have not hybridised their white tigers with other subspecies), and they still have at least one I think. I don't know if they ever bred from them though.

Other white tigers in southeast Asia (e.g. in the Indonesian theme-parks) are probably from western zoos rather than from India and would not be pure Indian Tigers.
Click to expand...
Indian zoos both keep white (mutant) colour tigers (whether hybrid or not is very difficult to get an angle on) and natural coat colour Bengal tigers.
 
Sheather said:
Why are we referring to these tigers as hybrids?......... They are even the same subspecies.
Panthera tigris tigris - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Except that the IUCN study which determined this is somewhat suspect, as has been discussed on this forum several times in the past, and subsequent studies have suggested the old multi-subspecies model is accurate.
 
Sheather said:
Why are we referring to these tigers as hybrids?
All continental tigers are the same species. They are even the same subspecies.
Panthera tigris tigris - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Wikipedia accepted the IUCN's opinion, but in 2018, researchers at Peking University refuted the opinion that there were two subspecies of tigers and argued that it was right to maintain the existing six subspecies. They published the paper below on that basis.

Genome-Wide Evolutionary Analysis of Natural History and Adaptation in the World’s Tigers
 
junglejim said:
That is why one can go to various zoos through out the US and see nothing but Amur, Malayan, or Sumatra Tigers. Kind of boring actually.
Click to expand...

You say the above, but apparently:
junglejim said:
I love all tigers.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand what you expect? Those are the only three subspecies available on a pure basis, which is necessary to maintain good genetic diversity - breeding subspecies is not helpful as they cannot be released back into the wild (unless your name is Damian Aspinall). South China tigers are impossible to get (and certainly not in large numbers, given virtually all remaining individuals are hybrids), Indochinese tigers have never been kept in the Western world afaik and Bengal tigers are being bred elsewhere purely. Why the need to have more subspecies? Because you find it boring to only have three at your disposal?

In Europe we have Sumatrans and Siberians - Malayans are few and far between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top