Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL

[Ituri]

The animals were owned by Columbus, a zoo known for doing their own thing, so there is no reason I can see not to believe Hawk Creek. From what I've been told the animals bred there have gone to zoos as ambassadors and not part of the SSP breeding program.

 

[Ituri]

So now we have Hawk Creek, a facility that is known for being secretive, saying these cats came from Sudan, and someone on ZTL saying they're from Chad, with Hawk Creek claiming their offspring are at a number of different zoos when the SSP is supposed to not include the African subspecies? I'm not aware of any other non-AZA sand cat holders (@TinoPup are you aware of any?) but could that be where they ended up? I'm beginning to think there are enough inconsistencies that the entire population might be best placed as "subspecies uncertain".

There are non aza sand cats. There are sand cats in the pet trade. Baby Sand Cat (Felis margarita) For Sale - Underground Reptiles

 

[Ituri]

Alright, well I messaged the Sand Cat SSP facebook page and got the following response. This does not cover the Columbus/Hawk Creek animals, but rather the SSP breeding population.

 

[Chlidonias]

Just as a matter of interest, I had a look at the CITES trade database for live imports of Sand Cats into the USA and Canada.

They had formerly come in from various European countries and the Middle East (eg Qatar and the UAE), but since 2017 all imports except one lot from South Africa are listed as originating in Sudan and South Sudan - and not in small numbers either.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

There are non aza sand cats. There are sand cats in the pet trade. Baby Sand Cat (Felis margarita) For Sale - Underground Reptiles

Huh, the more you know.

I suppose that explains how a layperson managed to get her hands on a male Sand Cat... in order to breed him to her domesticated female cat! The resulting hybrid kittens were cute, at least. Domestic x Sand Cat and Pallas's Cat Hybrids

 

[Animal]

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.

We would need sources for that.

I work at a zoo, so I also have the possibility to check ZIMS and had a look. The US-Zoos list their Reticulated giraffes as pure.

 

[15399]

We would need sources for that.

I work at a zoo, so I also have the possibility to check ZIMS and had a look. The US-Zoos list their Reticulated giraffes as pure.

AZA studbook for starters, and it has been mentioned on here by numerous members (including some who work with giraffes):

DNA sampling of wild populations has shown the two groups (Reticulated and Rothschild's / Baringo) to be distinct and identifiable. However, when researchers tried to compare these markers in the North American captive populations, they found overwhelming evidence of hybridization. Very few animals are of "known" origin - to the extent that all of their ancestors can be traced back to specific points of capture from the wild to ensure they really are the subspecies they are supposed to be.

So even though a giraffe may appear to be fully "reticulated", there is a high likelihood of having some Rothschild's genetics mixed in (and vice versa). Because of a number of unknowns in the studbook and this concrete evidence to show hybridization in the majority of the population, ALL of the retic/rothschilds are managed by AZA as one generic hybrid population, no matter what the institution records or reports to ISIS.

As OkapiKpr wrote, a PMP is much less strict - they make recommendations only. If a zoo "thinks" they have, say, reticulated giraffes, they do not need to follow the recommendation to bring in a "Rothschilds" and opt for an available "Retic". But the hard evidence is that there is really no difference - they are probably all hybrids to some extent, and any 'pure' animals would probably be fully related to other 'pure' ones, making breeding undesirable anyway.

Captive Masai giraffes are still closely comparable with their wild cousins genetically, and are thus managed separately.

I am referring to, for example, the currently situation for giraffe in the United States -- in 2004, it was discovered that the Baringo/Rothchild giraffe populations in the United States was interbred significantly with Reticulated giraffe compared to the native population, and lacking enough animals of pure genetic heritage for a sustainable population, most zoos manage a generic giraffe population instead. The AZA is trying to breed masai giraffe instead to build up a subspecies population that can one day replace these generic animals, but they are not breeding at a fast enough rate to replace the current giraffe immediately.

@TinoPup is correct. Any giraffe that you see at a zoo in North America that is not a Masai giraffe is going to be a hybrid to some degree (there are potentially a few purebred animals of the other two species knocking around but there are very, very few of them) due to historical interbreeding before different species/subspecies were more formally recognized. This is a topic that comes on ZooChat quite regularly as we get new members because most zoos still label their animals as "reticulated" giraffe (or sometimes less frequently, "Rothschild's"), essentially to keep face to the public. All of the giraffe in North America that are not Masai giraffe are managed as a single population, where they are commonly referred to on ZooChat and in the field as "generic" giraffe, hence the program is known as the Generic Giraffe SSP. These hybrid animals are managed as ambassadors for their species in the wild. More zoos are wanting to switch over to supporting the purebred Masai giraffe population as animals are available; however, zoos still want to have giraffe, which is why the generic animals are still bred.

The information that was given to you on your behind-the-scenes tour is just simply not true. A lot of zoos employ people that are not directly involved in Animal Care or Animal Management to serve as tour guides and guest experience ambassadors, and more often than not they do not know the full story or all of the facts. It sounds to me as though your guide did not know how to answer your question and just decided to make something up. The San Diego Zoo has been managing Masai giraffe for many, many years, and no giraffe have ever been returned to Africa for any sort of in-situ management, and this is likely to never occur. The San Diego Zoo Safari Park manages a generic giraffe herd as well as a Masai giraffe herd in their two largest field habitats (East Africa and South Africa, respectively). For what it's worth, of the other zoos you listed, Louisville also manages Masai giraffe. The rest do all manage generic giraffe.

 

[Animal]

We need concrete proof and not "people who work with the animals" or "So even though a giraffe may appear to be fully "reticulated", there is a high likelihood of having some Rothschild's genetics mixed in (and vice versa)."

The source "Trust me, bro" is not enough. Please link the study and show exactly what linage has to be hybrids.

And yes, zoos can be wrong (I am looking at you, Tierpark Berlin and your tigers) but studbooks these days are closely intertwined with ZIMS, so why would the majority of zoos list their animals wrong? Some even have individuals as generic and some as subspecies. So they might know the origins exactly.

Don't get me wrong, such infos are always great, but real sources would weigh a lot.

 

[15399]

We need concrete proof and not "people who work with the animals" or "So even though a giraffe may appear to be fully "reticulated", there is a high likelihood of having some Rothschild's genetics mixed in (and vice versa)."

The source "Trust me, bro" is not enough. Please link the study and show exactly what linage has to be hybrids.

And yes, zoos can be wrong (I am looking at you, Tierpark Berlin and your tigers) but studbooks these days are closely intertwined with ZIMS, so why would the majority of zoos list their animals wrong? Some even have individuals as generic and some as subspecies. So they might know the origins exactly.

Don't get me wrong, such infos are always great, but real sources would weigh a lot.

Credit goes to @Coelacanth18 for sharing the link to this study in another thread: https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_to_Extant_Giraffe_Populations_across_Africa

There was a genetic study done in 2004 (this is the abstract for that paper: https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_to_Extant_Giraffe_Populations_across_Africa) that compared genetic samples from 125 giraffes in North American zoos to over 400 wild individuals from multiple species/subspecies. The results were that the captive and wild Masai populations matched up genetically, but the captive Reticulated/Rothschild's/hybrid genetics were all over the place and did not conform with the samples from pure wild subspecies. This suggests that the vast majority of non-Masai giraffes in North America are a hybrid form, which is why they are managed as a single population.

There is a sizable population of Masai in US zoos but the generic population is much larger.

 

[Animal]

It still says "a majority". Thats not all. Do you have access to the study to confirm what animals are still pure?

 

[15399]

It still says "a majority". Thats not all. Do you have access to the study to confirm what animals are still pure?

I do not. However, I do know that the AZA has been managing the population of reticulated/Rothschild's as generic since (I'd share quotes from AZA documents, but that is against AZA policies) making it *highly* unlikely that there are still any pure individuals. Even if there is a small number of pure individuals left, shouldn't the burden of proof be on proving those individuals are pure, when the overwhelming consensus amongst the AZA and those who work in zoos is that the population is generic, rather than having to prove which individuals are generic? If anyone knows more about this and is able to provide more evidence than I, it would be ZooChat's resident giraffe expert, @DavidBrown, who has been involved in a lot of the genetic studies related to giraffe phylogeny.

 

[Animal]

It still makes little to no sense, that some animals were moved to generic in ZIMS and others not. And especially when there has been a study it is likely, that the zoos already found out who the "bad apples" are.

 

[birdsandbats]

It still makes little to no sense, that some animals were moved to generic in ZIMS and others not. And especially when there has been a study it is likely, that the zoos already found out who the "bad apples" are.

I don't have access to ZIMS of course, but is it really updated frequently enough that you expect everything on there to be correct?

 

[Animal]

For the major players it is, because every animal gets its personal entry. That means even if it changes zoos, all life-events are there to see.

A quick check showed that there are quite a lot of generic giraffes together with pure ones. For every individual is an entry.

I guess the phasing out of the generic ones since 2004 is under way.

 

[15399]

It still makes little to no sense, that some animals were moved to generic in ZIMS and others not. And especially when there has been a study it is likely, that the zoos already found out who the "bad apples" are.

I don't disagree that it doesn't make sense that in ZIMS some are listed as subspecific. However, as you said, ZIMS has been wrong before. The AZA manages the population as generic, they aren't managing it as two separate populations. This isn't a case of "bad apples" where there is a small number of hybrids being managed out of the population, it is the overwhelming majority of the population. Again, @DavidBrown might be able to provide additional insight, as could @Kudu21 who works with giraffes and is extremely knowledgeable about AZA ungulate programs, but unless one of them has something to add I don't understand why the evidence I've given isn't enough for you.

 

[15399]

I guess the phasing out of the generic ones since 2004 is under way.

That is not happening. Here's an example from one of my local zoos. Buffalo Zoo has three giraffes. They claim their male, Moke, is a Rothschild's giraffe. One of their other giraffes is his daughter, born in 2015 to a mother they claimed was a reticulated giraffe (who unfortunately passed away in 2019). If you have actual evidence that they've been phasing out generics, I'd love to hear it, but the claim that they are is not backed up by the actual AZA programs, AZA documents, or the overwhelming consensus amongst those who are knowledgeable about giraffes in US zoos.

 

[Animal]

Here you can find a studbook from 2011: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...99-2001-2003-2005-2007-2009-2011-editions.pdf

It states:

"Notes on Subspecies Identification

The subspecies noted in the studbook are based on the founder animals’ subspecies designation determined by the importing zoo. Some of this information has been confirmed or disproved by DNA analysis.

Rothschildi: Hemmingford's 636 Brigit, 642 Louise, 643 Wrinkles, 644 Graf and 681 Lucky were all imported to North America from Longleat, England. They are currently considered to be founders, although provenance and parentage are unknown.

Rockton's 680 Tom and 630 Teresa were imported to North America from Woburn, England. They are currently considered to be founders, although provenance and parentage are unknown.

NY Bronx's 1.2 founders, 449 Alfie, 448 Penelope and 450 Gertrude, were originally recorded by the zoo as rothschildi. However, the USDA logs for the Clifton quarantine facility as well as the PPEQ forms at Bronx report these animals as reticulata. Pictures from NY Bronx confirm these animals to be rothschildi (Dec 96).

Camelopardalis: Houston's 1.1 founders 239 Hi-Cecil and 243 Hi-Cecilia were originally recorded by the zoo as camelopardalis. However, the USDA logs for the Clifton quarantine facility report these animals as reticulata. PPEQ forms are not available. Analysis of pictures supports identification as reticulata. As of July 96 these animals are considered to be reticulata.

The USDA quarantine facility at Clifton, New Jersey, had 210 giraffe pass through it. In all but the above 5 cases, the Clifton logs, the PPEQ forms (when available) and the institution records match in regards subspecies."

 

[PossumRoach]

That doesn’t change the fact that all these individuals are likely lumped together under the “generic program” and have, are, and will be mixed to meet the demand for giraffes since the Masai program alone itself cannot meet the demand for giraffes fast enough.

 

[lintworm]

For the major players it is, because every animal gets its personal entry. That means even if it changes zoos, all life-events are there to see.

A quick check showed that there are quite a lot of generic giraffes together with pure ones. For every individual is an entry.

I guess the phasing out of the generic ones since 2004 is under way.

I found ZIMS to be extremely out of date when it comes to taxonomy in general, with plenty of obsolete subspecies still being used and in some cases animals clearly assigned as the wrong species. E.g. the Babirusa are still a mess, with enough animals that are B. celebensis still listed as B. babyrussa. So I wouldn't put too much trust in it when it comes to giraffe either.

 

[Wisp O' Mist]

We would need sources for that.

Does this count as a source?

https://www.azaungulates.org/s/Giraffe-4gnt.pdf