Which subspecies of Pallas' Cat is around?
Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL
- Thread starter TinoPup
- Start date
Noticed there's a lot of rockhopper penguins currently listed as "no species or subspecific status". I know nearly all are Southern, bit which subspecies of Southern? I'm guessing the nominate?
The AZA states them all to be Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome, so Western on ZTL. All NA entries under the no species/subspecies heading are incorrect and need to be moved to Western.
I know this has been mentioned more times than it should have to be: but there are NOT any reticulated giraffes in US zoos. Today, I noticed over 70 US zoos as listed with purebred reticulated giraffes, all of which would be false entries. Most, if not all, have the source listed as "- pers. Mitt. (E-Mail an ZTL v. 01.01.2024)". Most, if not all, of the eighteen listed with Rothschild's would also be false.
Not the only one either - lions are also massively messed up, as are Plains Zebra. Similarly I'd expect most of the entries for Plains Bison that aren't AZA are heavily mixed with cattle genes and better placed under no ssp status.
For several native birds I've noticed some people are apparently just going with whatever the native subspecies is - which is both potentially incorrect and is frequently leading to duplicate facility listings under different subspecies.
Yeah- at first a lot of this was likely growing pains (and understandably so), but the giraffe one is something that has been re-hashed and mentioned so many times that it's getting to be pretty frustrating... especially as it seems like one or a small number of people bulk-adding incorrect entries instead of people making a innocent mistake on a zoo they know well every now and again.
Native birds is one I don't think has been brought up as often as giraffes, so it's a little more understandable it is still a mess, and it's of course further complicated by the fact most of us (myself included) really don't know what subspecies zoos have as the sources of rescued individuals aren't always clear. It's one thing when golden eagles are being listed as "American golden eagles", as it can reasonably be assumed all of them are from this continent, but it is a completely different story with something like great-horned owls that there are lots of subspecies out there and it's potentially unclear what zoos are holding. I for one tend to lean heavily towards "no subspecies status" in cases like these, since the subspecies is by all means unknown, but I can see how it'd be confusing for people who only know that it's a rescued bird.
If all that's known is it's a rescue bird, it should just go under "no ssp status" - because who knows where it came from. Applies to Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, Great Horned Owl, Peregrine Falcon, and Common Raven at the very least.
Conversely, sometimes it's the other way around and people are assuming generic when the population is mostly known - Burrowing Owl being a prime example.
The long and short is a lot of people are doing more guessing than anything when entering into ZTL.
Shouldn't all bison in the US (outside of Alaska, at least) be entered as Plains Bison? All bison are messed up with cattle genes (even the supposedly pure ones).
Great-horned Owl and Red-tailed Hawk can be IDed to subspecies visually in many cases, though.If all that's known is it's a rescue bird, it should just go under "no ssp status" - because who knows where it came from. Applies to Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, Great Horned Owl, Peregrine Falcon, and Common Raven at the very least.
Conversely, sometimes it's the other way around and people are assuming generic when the population is mostly known - Burrowing Owl being a prime example.
The long and short is a lot of people are doing more guessing than anything when entering into ZTL.
I'd say a good argument could be made for putting all "Plains" Bison under the non-subspecific heading, as they all carry some degree of cattle genes. Judging by the amount of double entries between non-subspecific and Plains on ZTL, it seems people feel both ways.
True, though not everyone is familiar with separating them and some are easier than others. I've still not found a real good way to seperate GHO ssp, though I agree there's definite subspecies differences.
Does anyone know what's out there for sand cats? I've noticed much of the population is listed as F. m. harrisoni, but some are listed as F. m. margarita and one institution is listed as no subspecies status. Two institutions (Buffalo and Erie) are listed for both subspecies, which is highly unlikely (especially since Buffalo's two individuals are brothers). Anyone know which should be correct?
Both are present but the African are non SSP and usually used as ambassadors. Bronx and Columbus are two holders of African I’m aware of
This is being done for native mammals and herps as well. Sometimes it's people assigning entries to whatever subspecies is called "American" in ZTL, sometimes it's people (presumably) assigning entries to whatever subspecies is found locally in the zoo's area (which is a wrong assumption to make), sometimes it seems based on signage that is likely incorrect or outdated, etc.
It's also difficult to suss out which ones may be accurate, because so many entries lack details; most people who make entries under subspecies don't use the info box to explain how they arrived at the subspecies ID - so there's no way to know if they actually verified it or if they just guessed. This is part of a broader issue of many people not giving enough source information.
Conversely, sometimes it's the other way around and people are assuming generic when the population is mostly known - Burrowing Owl being a prime example.
Personally I think this is less of an issue than the reverse assumption; at least in that case it is more of an incomplete ID than an incorrect one. I will admit openly that I've been putting Burrowing Owls in at the species level, as I haven't yet seen a source for them definitely being from one subspecies or another.
That also brings me to another point of concern: while it's great that this thread exists and that some members seem to be knowledgeable about subspecies holdings, if we want to be rigorous about sources it would helpful to know where a lot of this subspecies info is coming from. "Someone on ZooChat I trust told me it's this" might lead to more accurate entries than people guessing randomly would, but it's still not ideal from a fact-checking standpoint... especially if there is not always unanimous agreement.
Almost no zoos advertise their Asian elephants to the subspecies level, so I think this is another case where people accidentally give information that isn't entirely accurate. However, given that the population is managed at the species level and that multiple subspecies (and their hybrids) are present, it doesn't seem unreasonable to place them at the species level as it could be hard to know for certain in many cases what's what.
I understand that. However, I know several zoos with elephants that were born specifically in mainland Asia
That's something I've been noticing a lot in this thread. Someone asks "what subspecies of X is in the USA" and someone else just says "Y or Z". No source given, and no reason to believe they actually know if this is the case or if it is just what they believe.
The AZA studbook lists location for the large majority of wild-caught Burrowing Owls, and 95% of them are Western hypugaea. Most common source states are California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Alberta, and Manitoba. There have been a few Florida birds, there appear to be no current ones in the AZA population. Only one bird is documented to not be from those two ssp, a bird noted as imported from South America to Cincinnati in 1902.
Do administrators have the ability to mass move all of the listings to a different page? If so, some of the examples like giraffe and bison could be easily fixed. I'd dread if it needed to be done on an individual level.
There are other potential errors as well -- if anyone has seen the Racine Zoo thread, where it appears based on the date and note that my e-mailed report about Racine Zoo's holdings may have been misinterpreted to suggest a species still present is now a former holding.
There are other potential errors as well -- if anyone has seen the Racine Zoo thread, where it appears based on the date and note that my e-mailed report about Racine Zoo's holdings may have been misinterpreted to suggest a species still present is now a former holding.
The first time I saw this notice I assumed it meant the individual who sent the e-mail was named Mitt before I realized that was a shorthand.
And a bunch of them are already correctly entered as generic. Same case with many other subspecies, there's numerous double entries.