Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL

Sarus Crane - tread very carefully as both A. a. antigone and A. a. sharpii are around. ICF may even still keep A. a. gilliae.

Sandhill Crane - huge mix of subspecies around

Boat-billed Heron - most are probably C. c. ridgwayi, but some may be generic. DWA has C. c. panamensis.

Cattle Egret - All should be the newly-split Western (B. (b.) ibis)

Sea Otter - Both extant subspecies are around, some facilities even keep both.
 
Does anyone know about the following:
  • Keel-billed Toucans: I've noticed both nominates and generics in ZTL. Are both around, or are some incorrect?
  • Andean Cock-of-the-Rock: In ZTL, Toledo Zoo is listed as having generics and two different subspecies. Do they actually have three different types of the same species or is that a mistake?
 
Neil chace said:
Does anyone know about the following:
  • Keel-billed Toucans: I've noticed both nominates and generics in ZTL. Are both around, or are some incorrect?
  • Andean Cock-of-the-Rock: In ZTL, Toledo Zoo is listed as having generics and two different subspecies. Do they actually have three different types of the same species or is that a mistake?
Click to expand...

I think @Great Argus has been working on the toucans and putting in a lot of effort to make them correct
 
Neil chace said:
Keel-billed Toucans: I've noticed both nominates and generics in ZTL. Are both around, or are some incorrect?
Click to expand...

I think it's a case of both, though some are likely incorrect.

Neil chace said:
Andean Cock-of-the-Rock: In ZTL, Toledo Zoo is listed as having generics and two different subspecies. Do they actually have three different types of the same species or is that a mistake?
Click to expand...

DWA holds both subspecies and is the origin point for the current Andean Cock-of-the-Rock in NA. I'm not sure what Toledo holds, but it should be either both subspecies or one subspecies, not generic.
 
SusScrofa said:
Do we go with a "innocent until proven guilty" method and assign it to the subspecies the zoo claims it belongs to, or do we do the opposite approach and just always assign generic status unless at an AZA zoo?
Click to expand...

I dont think this can be handled in uniform manner across species, regions and facilities.

For example, I think all tigers in the US and Europe should be asigned under generic category no matter what the zoo staff or its signage tells you. Unless they are part of regional studbook or can be traced back to imported pure animals with known origin. Thus guilty until proven innocent. I handle most other large species that are hard to import from range countries for many decades and thus rely on continuous (private) captive breeding in similar manner.

On the other hand, it´s pretty normal to see imports of wild-caught herps /birds /small mammals even today and private facilities seem to care about subspecies purity more in recent times. Here I would, if rarer small species of animal is signed to certain subspecies, it seems plausible and it also looks its part, go with innocent until proven quilty.
 
Not necessarily a question on subspecies, but are the Brown Greater Galagos (Otolemur crassicaudatus) in the United States actually just mislabeled Garnett's Greater Galagos (Otolemur garnettii)?
 
A note re tigers as I see Memphis has been listed as holding generic: with a handful of exceptions, all tigers in AZA facilities are part of a studbook program for either Amur, Sumatran, or Malayan. They may not necessarily be signed to the correct subspecies (eg, the Memphis listing cites Bengal signage for the generic listing, however Memphis holds Sumatran per studbook.)

The exceptions to the rule, AZAs holding generics:

Busch Gardens Tampa
Caldwell
Gladys Porter
Landry's Downtown Aquarium Houston
Oakland
White Oak Conservation Center
ZooMontana

All other AZA hold at least one of the three managed subspecies, per the studbooks - regardless of what the signage may indicate.

As far as outside the AZA goes, it's a mixed bag, and unless you have concrete evidence they're pure, any non-AZA places should be listed as generic.
 
Dhole dude said:
Not necessarily a question on subspecies, but are the Brown Greater Galagos (Otolemur crassicaudatus) in the United States actually just mislabeled Garnett's Greater Galagos (Otolemur garnettii)?
Click to expand...

No; I've seen photographs over the years which show that both species (and *possibly* Otolemur monteiri too, although this is more doubtful) are present within private and public collections in the United States.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
No; I've seen photographs over the years which show that both species (and *possibly* Otolemur monteiri too, although this is more doubtful) are present within private and public collections in the United States.
Click to expand...
And these animals are not hybridized by any chance?
 
Neil chace said:
Keel-billed Toucans: I've noticed both nominates and generics in ZTL. Are both around, or are some incorrect?
Click to expand...

Having done some more poking around, it would seem the majority are nominate. A few places appear to have had brevicarinatus.

For comparison purposes:

Nominate at DWA by @Ding Lingwei - note lack of red border (may show a smidge of red) and longer looking bill.
full


Brevicarinatus at LA Zoo by @Blackduiker - note the extensive amount of red lining the yellow breast and the compacter-looking bill.
full
 
PossumRoach said:
Is it me or does the nominate animal also lack a smidgeon of cyan on the bottom bill the brevicarinatus has?
Click to expand...

The cyan tends to vary a decent bit I noted in comparing wild photos - I don't know how much I'd weigh on that factor alone. Nominate birds are more likely to lack it though, vs many brevicarinatus have a significant amount of blue on the bill.
 
PossumRoach said:
And these animals are not hybridized by any chance?
Click to expand...

I don't think they are, but obviously I can't rule it out for certain given the fact they tend to pop up in very random and obscure places!
 
Several entries I've held off on because the situation is unclear to me currently:

Mammals
Blue Duiker - two different pages for species level, both with entries - along with one entry for a subspecific
Reeves' Muntjac - species level or Chinese ssp?
Black Rhino - we have both Eastern and South-central
Emperor Tamarin - are they all Bearded ssp?
Red Panda - I know we have Nepalese and Chinese, and people have been adding to both - with no overlap so far. I don't know the type for any that I've seen, how are people entering these?
Hystrix - are we assuming that all AZA are africaeaustralis, even when they are signed cristata?
Southern Tamandua - can ssp be easily verified visually, or should this be considered one mixed population?
Ocelots - I know that some zoos have mitis, but I'm not sure which ones

Birds
Gray Crowned Crane - should these be at species level or gibbericeps?
Common Ravens - should these be species level, or are all of ours probably one ssp?
Rhinoceros Hornbills - all just species level?

Reptiles
Fijian Banded Iguana - different zoos sign either fasciatus or bulabula, but I'm not sure these are actually different populations?
Crocodile Lizard - most zoos sign at species level but use the common name "Chinese" - so are these just species level or the Chinese ssp?
Indian Rock Python - is "sensu lato" for back when molurus and bivittatus where considered the same species, and if so does that mean any true molurus should be "nominate"? Or are those signed to species level still "sensu lato" molurus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top