Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL

[15399]

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."

And that proves absolutely nothing except for that a some of the founders were subspecific. Those aren't animals that are still alive today. Plus, why trust photo evidence from 1996 over genetic testing from 2004?

While I don't know specifically about the giraffe one, I also know that not all of the AZA studbooks have moved over to ZIMS yet. @Aardwolf likely knows more about this, but ZIMS isn't used universally by US zoos yet and it's been a slow process of shifting studbooks over.

 

[Great Argus]

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."

And if you read further down in that same studbook, you get the following information:



The population is cited to be hybrids based on genetic study and it is noted that substantial misclassification has occurred.

 

[Animal]

And so now begins the work to find out wich ones are still pure and which ones aren't. Just to state "then they are all hybrids" is not enough. Yes, that's work, but we have a studbook on hand, so maybe we should crack on.

 

[Great Argus]

And so now begins the work to find out wich ones are still pure and which ones aren't. Just to state "then they are all hybrids" is not enough. Yes, that's work, but we have a studbook on hand, so maybe we should crack on.

I don't know what you expect us to do. ZIMS is only limited access and is largely outdated. The 2011 studbook you linked does not provide clarification to subspecies in question for NA further than "retic/roth". The current studbook does not provide any indication of subspecies, I've already looked. The current SSP document does not either. The population is managed as hybrid generics and has been for over a decade. People versed in the subject have said in past discussions that there are very few pure Retics and Roths left, if any at this point. This topic has been the subject of much discussion in the past, and the hybrids are nothing new.
We have no good way to confirm whether any are pure. With people constantly changing up listings, trying to keep things sorted would be a nightmare.

 

[lintworm]

And so now begins the work to find out wich ones are still pure and which ones aren't. Just to state "then they are all hybrids" is not enough. Yes, that's work, but we have a studbook on hand, so maybe we should crack on.

All in all this sounds like you get the results closest to the real situation if you treat all these giraffes as generic, unless proven otherwise. Treating them as pure (sub)species, while the vast majority will be generic, gives the wrong impression and will contain more errors.

 

[Torgos]

And that proves absolutely nothing except for that a some of the founders were subspecific. Those aren't animals that are still alive today. Plus, why trust photo evidence from 1996 over genetic testing from 2004?

While I don't know specifically about the giraffe one, I also know that not all of the AZA studbooks have moved over to ZIMS yet. @Aardwolf likely knows more about this, but ZIMS isn't used universally by US zoos yet and it's been a slow process of shifting studbooks over.

Two parts to this answer.
Studbooks etc are not "on ZIMS". Animal records are on ZIMS. Studbooks/SSPs are different programs within AZA. A studbook keeper is not dependent on ZIMS for their info and neither is the person managing the SSP.
Most AZA institutions use ZIMS. There are a few that use a competing product called Tracks. They are independent companies touting similar products. A problem with Tracks and ZIMS is that the two systems don't really talk to each other so switching to another system is very hard. Example: Fort Worth Zoo, using Tracks, has a huge collection of individual animals. Each animal has potentially years of info in Tracks. All medical data is also on Tracks. Loss of that info during transition to another system is a massive risk. Transferring to ZIMS has been done by specialists at great expense and time but it's not easy. There have also been a couple of places that have switched from ZIMS to Tracks.

 

[Torgos]

Two parts to this answer.
Studbooks etc are not "on ZIMS". Animal records are on ZIMS. Studbooks/SSPs are different programs within AZA. A studbook keeper is not dependent on ZIMS for their info and neither is the person managing the SSP.
Most AZA institutions use ZIMS. There are a few that use a competing product called Tracks. They are independent companies touting similar products. A problem with Tracks and ZIMS is that the two systems don't really talk to each other so switching to another system is very hard. Example: Fort Worth Zoo, using Tracks, has a huge collection of individual animals. Each animal has potentially years of info in Tracks. All medical data is also on Tracks. Loss of that info during transition to another system is a massive risk. Transferring to ZIMS has been done by specialists at great expense and time but it's not easy. There have also been a couple of places that have switched from ZIMS to Tracks.

I should add that I am NOT representing Fort Worth Zoo with my comments. I used it jus as an example of a Tracks user that has a massive collection. I have no connection with that zoo.

 

[15399]

And so now begins the work to find out wich ones are still pure and which ones aren't. Just to state "then they are all hybrids" is not enough. Yes, that's work, but we have a studbook on hand, so maybe we should crack on.

Since it is clear you won't taken anything less as proof, despite the numerous other sources given by myself and others, I put way too much work into this today to finally put this issue to rest.

For starters, the most recent generic giraffe SSP plan contains a graph showing each founder of the population, a total of 96 founders. With this information, I used CTRL+F to find each of the 96 founders as quickly as possible in the 2011 studbook you provided. Out of 96 founders, 87 of them are listed as subspecies "ret/roth". Unfortunately, each of these 87 founders had their location of origin listed as either Kenya or East Africa, and given that multiple species of giraffe live in each of these locations, it would be impossible using the studbook to determine the actual identity of any of these individuals.

That leaves us with a total of nine individuals that are not listed as "ret/roth" to analyze the descendants of. Out of these nine individuals, one of them (SB#409) is listed as a "hybrid" and one of them (SB#206) is listed as tippelskirchi. Since the Masai giraffe population is managed separately and isn't part of the genetic question, that individual would not provide any additionally helpful insight to this study.

Of the seven individuals remaining, three (sub)species of giraffe are represented: reticulata (SB# 207, 474), camelopardalis (95, 96), and rothschildi (5-336, 5-339, 5-337). With this information in hand, I will now go through each of these individuals to determine if any had offspring together that would be of known pure subspecies.

Reticulata
Two individuals were listed as subspecies reticulata. One of them was a male giraffe who lived at the Dallas Zoo from 1956-1978, and the other was a female giraffe who lived at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo from 1968-1995. Given that there were no offspring between these two individuals, there are no individuals based on the information available that can be proven as pure reticulated giraffes.

Camelopardalis
These two individuals, 95 and 96, were both imported from Sudan to the National Zoo in 1937, where they lived until their deaths in the late 1950's. There were offspring from this pair, including a daughter who was back-bred with the father. However, the last individual in the studbook I could find who was descended purely from these two founders was a female that died at the Honolulu Zoo in 1985. Given that all the other founders were listed as "retic/roth", it is all but a certainty there are no purebred giraffes of this species in US zoos, although some of this species' genes are still floating around in the generic population.

Rothschildi
These three founders (5-3336, 5-3339, and 5-3337) were the parents to three giraffes imported from Woburn, England to the African Lion Safari in Canada in the 1973. This trio of giraffes had three offspring. Two of them were later exported to a zoo in New Zealand, while the third went to Zoo Granby, where she lived until 2005. There are no individuals left alive descended purely from these three founders.

Basically, your idea that we can find purebred individuals in the 2011 studbook is completely false. Unless you or anyone has information on any of the 87 founders listed as "ret/roth", then the closest I can get is that the last confirmed purebred Northern giraffe died in 1985, the last confirmed purebred reticulated giraffe died in 1995, and the last confirmed purebred Rothschild's giraffe died in 2005. I see no reasonable way to not believe those of us stating there aren't purebred individuals in US zoos, and that they should all be changed to generic in ZTL.

 

[Astrotom3000]

Also I've noticed a bunch of listings for generic Hellbenders. Hellbenders are managed at subspecies level and both are around, most facilities will sign which one they have.

Seems I have gotten very unlucky because most facilities I have been to that hold Hellbender only sign them at the species level; the one exception being the Virginia Living Museum. That said, in all contexts, it would make sense for them to be C. a. alleganiensis rather than the ozark ssp.

 

[Great Argus]

@Animal There's something I would like some clarification on please.

We have been explicitly told that if we are even strongly suspected of using ZIMS as a source of information it's a non-negotiable ban, including that subspecies listings are often wrong:

I want to mention that data from ZIMS/Species360 is forbidden to be used as source on Zootierliste. Please consider using other sources like press releases, social media releases, Zoo guidebooks, personal visits (with exact date), scientific publications and others.

ZIMS isn't often correct in listing the correct subspecies and the most important point is, that the zoos own their data on ZIMS. If they want them to be public, they would make them public. So we have to rely on other sources than ZIMS/Species360. We still want to be trustworthy partners with zoos. We have been in the past and still want to be in the future. So if anyone stands out negatively with using data from ZIMS/Species360 we have no other choice than banning the specific user from ZTL. This topic can't be negotiated.

So then I'm curious why you're arguing against all of us, using a source that is both widely known to be outdated and wrong, and when if any of us used your source we'd be banned from ZTL...

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.

but studbooks these days are closely intertwined with ZIMS, so why would the majority of zoos list their animals wrong?

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.

That comes across very hypocritical and confusing. It also feels like not all the ZTL admins aren't on the same page with the issue.

 

[Aardwolf]

A little clarification on one point. Studbooks (for AZA, at least), are, despite what has been said earlier, are in fact, "on ZIMS." ZIMS launched the studbook feature about five years ago, and all AZA studbooks have migrated over since then. I will say that I find it to be much easier to work with then PopLink, as zoos are entering their own updates in real-time. AZA has made arrangement for non-Species360 facilities to still have access to ZIMS for studbooks.

I'm not at all clear where the impression that the program is inherently inaccurate has come from, especially because, from what I gather, most folks on here have never used it, and only seem to be familiar with the inventory aspect of it. It's like any recordkeeping software, it's as accurate as the information that people put into it. Some zoos update things several times a day. Some do it when they can, which might not be as often.

I've had a ZC member ask me if I'd be willing to put the inventory of my zoo on ZTL and to be honest... I haven't really felt like it. Despite all of the enthusiasm folks on here are showing for it, right now it seems like there's a lot of inaccuracies and assumptions on the data being thrown at it, and it hasn't seemed like a very worthwhile use of my time. I've seen folks on here post incorrect assumptions of my zoo's holdings (assuming that animals are here that died years ago, not realizing that animals are here, getting counts wrong), so I question how accurate the data being contributed to ZTL is in some cases.

 

[Ituri]

A little clarification on one point. Studbooks (for AZA, at least), are, despite what has been said earlier, are in fact, "on ZIMS." ZIMS launched the studbook feature about five years ago, and all AZA studbooks have migrated over since then. I will say that I find it to be much easier to work with then PopLink, as zoos are entering their own updates in real-time. AZA has made arrangement for non-Species360 facilities to still have access to ZIMS for studbooks.

I'm not at all clear where the impression that the program is inherently inaccurate has come from, especially because, from what I gather, most folks on here have never used it, and only seem to be familiar with the inventory aspect of it. It's like any recordkeeping software, it's as accurate as the information that people put into it. Some zoos update things several times a day. Some do it when they can, which might not be as often.

I've had a ZC member ask me if I'd be willing to put the inventory of my zoo on ZTL and to be honest... I haven't really felt like it. Despite all of the enthusiasm folks on here are showing for it, right now it seems like there's a lot of inaccuracies and assumptions on the data being thrown at it, and it hasn't seemed like a very worthwhile use of my time. I've seen folks on here post incorrect assumptions of my zoo's holdings (assuming that animals are here that died years ago, not realizing that animals are here, getting counts wrong), so I question how accurate the data being contributed to ZTL is in some cases.

It's only as accurate as the people adding to it. If people with actual knowledge, don't participate, it reduces its accuracy

 

[Aardwolf]

It's only as accurate as the people adding to it. If people with actual knowledge, don't participate, it reduces its accuracy

Quite right. Which is why I wish some folks would take a step back and realize that if you don't know (not guess, but actually *know*) the answer, there's no shame in not contributing

 

[CMP]

I've had a ZC member ask me if I'd be willing to put the inventory of my zoo on ZTL and to be honest... I haven't really felt like it. Despite all of the enthusiasm folks on here are showing for it, right now it seems like there's a lot of inaccuracies and assumptions on the data being thrown at it, and it hasn't seemed like a very worthwhile use of my time. I've seen folks on here post incorrect assumptions of my zoo's holdings (assuming that animals are here that died years ago, not realizing that animals are here, getting counts wrong), so I question how accurate the data being contributed to ZTL is in some cases.

If people just stuck to using the preexisting convention, of reporting (Seen, signposted) or (Not seen, not signposted), and the variations in between, nearly all of these issues would be gone.

I think the main problems right now are inaccurate subspecies statuses and people entering information without actually visiting. For most zoochatters, the best way to make ZTL accurate is to simply just list what you saw or didn't.

(Friendly PSA once again please use this convention, a majority of listings I see for NA ZTL don't)

 

[birdsandbats]

If people just stuck to using the preexisting convention, of reporting (Seen, signposted) or (Not seen, not signposted), and the variations in between, nearly all of these issues would be gone.

I think the main problems right now are inaccurate subspecies statuses and people entering information without actually visiting. For most zoochatters, the best way to make ZTL accurate is to simply just list what you saw or didn't.

(Friendly PSA once again please use this convention, a majority of listings I see for NA ZTL don't)

Didn't realize this was a convention I was supposed to be following. I will for future entries.

 

[CMP]

I mean, this was the message you get when you create your ZTL account...

welcome to Zootierliste. Please note, that it's mandatory to add a resource to the collection entry for every species. For example: " - Visit 10/2022 (seen, labeled; not seen, not labeled)"

The vast majority of 'personal visit' listings in Europe follow this convention, so it is quite inconsistent that most 'personal visit' listings in North America don't.

 

[JVM]

If people just stuck to using the preexisting convention, of reporting (Seen, signposted) or (Not seen, not signposted), and the variations in between, nearly all of these issues would be gone.

I think the main problems right now are inaccurate subspecies statuses and people entering information without actually visiting. For most zoochatters, the best way to make ZTL accurate is to simply just list what you saw or didn't.

(Friendly PSA once again please use this convention, a majority of listings I see for NA ZTL don't)

I tried to use this convention, happy to say, and only ran into the issue I encountered a species that was not signed or seen but was told by a keeper was present and off for the winter. (Racine's storks.)

 

[Animal]

I tried to use this convention, happy to say, and only ran into the issue I encountered a species that was not signed or seen but was told by a keeper was present and off for the winter. (Racine's storks.)

Then you add the source "Personal information" for example. But here it is even more important to be sure about species and subspecies, if you don't see them yourself. But if there is already an entry with source, then add it to that with your source

 

[RatioTile]

Is “signposted” correct word choice? I Googled it and “signpost” refers more to signs on a road indicating distance and direction. I tend to write “signed” on ZTL instead. Zoo signage in animal exhibits are not signposts but labels/infographics.

 

[CMP]

Is “signposted” correct word choice? I Googled it and “signpost” refers more to signs on a road indicating distance and direction. I tend to write “signed” on ZTL instead. Zoo signage in animal exhibits are not signposts but labels/infographics.

That is fine, 'signposted / not signposted' is just the google translation of ausgeschildert/nicht ausgeschildert that is used for European collections. 'Signed' probably is more accurate, but I use 'signposted' for the sake of consistency.