Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL

Wisp O' Mist said:
Maybe somebody should tell them that, then?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they will care. The current folks running the show at the AZA do not believe that subspecies matter and are more focused on whatever looks best on paper in terms of 'genetic diversity'.

Coelacanth18 said:
Sorry, I had the order wrong! What I meant was: identify the zoos that have offspring from the Sudanese male and designate them as generic; designate other AZA zoos that have younger or breeding animals as krugeri; and then designate all others as generic.

Over time that is going to get a little harder to follow though, if those mixed-subspecies descendants continue to breed and be sent throughout the country.
Click to expand...

I believe that would be the most appropriate option yeah. While that does get hard to follow, surely that is more accurate than just listing everything as generic because the situation has (sadly) become a bit complicated. It's important and useful information to be able to track and follow.

~Thylo
 
Re:lions, sounds like a plan then! Moving on to bears:

Brown Bear: are any of the subspecies listings are accurate? There's currently:
  • 45 listings for Grizzly, some of which are in non-accredited zoos;
  • 7 listings for Syrian;
  • 5 listings for Alaskan Peninsular (U. a. gyas);
  • 3 listings for Kodiak;
  • 3 listings for Sitka;
  • 1 listing for "Alaskan" (U. a. alascensis);
  • 1 listing for European;
  • 1 listing for Hokkaido;
There's also 16 entries for no-subspecies Brown Bear, 6 of which are noted as being signed for subspecies but in doubt and 2 of which are noted as being wild origin from Alaska but not assigned to a subspecies.
As usual, I suspect the validity on most of the unaccredited zoo listings - those being all of the non-natives, a few of the Grizzly and a couple of the Alaskans - but I'm open to hearing otherwise.

Sloth Bear: several of our zoos are listed for Indian ssp and one also for Sri Lankan ssp. Are these listings accurate, and also is most or nearly all of the population definitely one of the two subspecies rather than generic?

Sun Bear: are the current listings for Bornean and nominate accurate? There are 5 for the former and 4 for the latter.
 
Bronx has one Grizzly and two Sitka Brown Bears. While they don't list the latter to subspecies, articles on their rescue from the wild confirm they came from the ABC Islands. Brookfield I think has Sitka as well.

Many years ago there was an attempt to establish Syrian Brown Bears in the US by some people outside of AZA zoos. The aging offspring of that failed breeding program are still around. I've seen a couple at Space Farms and I know there's a zoo in Kansas with them.

Space Farms also has some Kodiak Brown Bears and has/had the last of the Hokkaido Bears in the US. I've seen and photographed these animals. Iirc the Hokkaido Bear is a remnant from a small population imported by AZA zoos into the US long ago.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Many years ago there was an attempt to establish Syrian Brown Bears in the US by some people outside of AZA zoos. The aging offspring of that failed breeding program are still around. I've seen a couple at Space Farms and I know there's a zoo in Kansas with them.

Space Farms also has some Kodiak Brown Bears and has/had the last of the Hokkaido Bears in the US. I've seen and photographed these animals. Iirc the Hokkaido Bear is a remnant from a small population imported by AZA zoos into the US long ago.
Click to expand...

Got it, thanks. This is what makes it hard; it seems like some animals in privately operated zoos really are legitimately subspecific, but then there's other cases where it's pretty clearly just incorrect labeling/advertising.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
What I meant was: identify the zoos that have offspring from the Sudanese male and designate them as generic;
Click to expand...

Simba - wild born in Sudan, currently at Great Plains. Paired
Tsavo - imported with father Simba, currently at Wildlife Safari. Paired
Enzi - imported with father Simba, currently at Wildlife Safari. Paired
Binti - Born at Detroit, currently at Sacramento. Paired
Arnold - Born at Wildlife Safari (Tsavo), currently at Audubon. Paired
Patty - Born at Wildlife Safari (Tsavo), currently at Milwaukee. Unpaired
Haji - Born at Audubon (Arnold), currently at NC. Paired
Asani - Born at Audubon (Arnold), currently at Roosevelt Park. Paired
Amira - Born at Sedgwick (Patty), currently at Milwaukee. Unpaired
Eloise - Born at Sedgwick (Patty), currently at Milwaukee. Unpaired
JaKiya - Born at RP (Asani), currently at RP. Unpaired​

There is the living family tree for the Sudanese line - many of them had breeding recs as of the last SSP a couple years ago. It is to be expected the line will continue to expand.
For succinctness - Audubon, Great Plains, Milwaukee, North Carolina, Roosevelt Park, Sacramento, Wildlife Safari currently hold them. Denver, Detroit, and Sedgwick County held within the last couple years. All of these hold the krugeri/melanochaita as well.

Facilities with more general generics per 2025 studbook - Akron (+ pure), Busch Gardens Tampa, Cape May, Capron Park, Lake Superior, Pittsburg, Toronto, Utica, Zoo de Granby. All other holders not listed in the above two paragraphs are known "krugeri."

Coelacanth18 said:
Sloth Bear: several of our zoos are listed for Indian ssp and one also for Sri Lankan ssp. Are these listings accurate, and also is most or nearly all of the population definitely one of the two subspecies rather than generic?
Click to expand...

Tough call. There are only two bears in the studbook marked as known arriving from Sri Lanka, and digging forwards from there reveals breeding with undetermined or Indian origin. Zoos that have sent bears from Europe are under the non-subspecific tab on ZTL. As a whole, very unclear and probably bold to list as known subspecies.

Coelacanth18 said:
Sun Bear: are the current listings for Bornean and nominate accurate? There are 5 for the former and 4 for the latter.
Click to expand...

These are correct.
 
Last edited:
I really appreciate all of the insight the more informed zoochatters are providing here, following it has been really educational.

ThylacineAlive said:
Bronx has one Grizzly and two Sitka Brown Bears. While they don't list the latter to subspecies, articles on their rescue from the wild confirm they came from the ABC Islands. Brookfield I think has Sitka as well.
Click to expand...
This looks to be correct. Brookfield's older bear Axhi was rescued as an orphaned cub from Admiralty Island in southeastern Alaska, which looks to correspond with the Sitka subspecies. The recent cubs Tim and Jess were rescued from Anchorage and were identified as "Alaskan coastal brown bears" when rescued. These bears have all been signed Brown bear (Ursus arctos) but the zoo still refers to them as grizzly bears informally.

I know Milwaukee for many years has simultaneously held grizzly bears and Alaskan brown bears in separate enclosures, and still has several bears. The brown bears (Boris) have typically been held between the badger and prairie dog enclosures, facing one of the restaurants, with grizzlies (Ronnie, Brian, Chinook) in the grotto between the elk and caribou and an additional grizzly (Bozeman) in the former polar bear enclosure who is part of the same family group. I wonder if Boris would be a Sitka then?

ThylacineAlive said:
Many years ago there was an attempt to establish Syrian Brown Bears in the US by some people outside of AZA zoos. The aging offspring of that failed breeding program are still around. I've seen a couple at Space Farms and I know there's a zoo in Kansas with them.

Space Farms also has some Kodiak Brown Bears and has/had the last of the Hokkaido Bears in the US. I've seen and photographed these animals. Iirc the Hokkaido Bear is a remnant from a small population imported by AZA zoos into the US long ago.
Click to expand...
Did these breeding programs fail for lack of results, lack of holder interest or other factors? I know when researching Denver there was some talk that there are so many rescued brown bears in the population that they can become prohibitively difficult to place. Denver was initially hoping to retain polar bears in their original location but ultimately forced to focus their renovation on grizzly bears when the old enclosure was found to be unsafe for the animals and there was no way to place them.

Great Argus said:
For succinctness - Audubon, Great Plains, Milwaukee, North Carolina, Roosevelt Park, Sacramento, Wildlife Safari currently hold them. Denver, Detroit, and Sedgwick County held within the last couple years. All of these hold the krugeri/melanochaita as well.
Click to expand...
Very interesting to know that Milwaukee has some of these individuals. I know there is some interest in resuming breeding at Milwaukee in the future so this line may continue there.
 
JVM said:
I know when researching Denver there was some talk that there are so many rescued brown bears in the population that they can become prohibitively difficult to place.
Click to expand...

The extensive need to place rescued Grizzly and American Black Bears is one of the biggest challenges to the exotic bear programs, space can be filled very easily and bears are well capable of living well into their 20's and even 30's. Getting a new holder to wait for Andeans or Sloths to be available when the exhibit could have a bear pretty much immediately requires some luck.

JVM said:
Very interesting to know that Milwaukee has some of these individuals. I know there is some interest in resuming breeding at Milwaukee in the future so this line may continue there.
Click to expand...

Indeed - afaik Milwaukee has no male still but all females there are part of that lineage. Decent chances there will be cubs eventually. Due to the high population numbers the lion SSP limits breeding recommendations so that cubs can be placed, but there has been quite a bit of apparent interest in keeping this line going. Most likely due to the fact Simba, Tsavo, and Enzi represent a completely separate line that is beneficial genetics-wise (even if technically a different subspecies :rolleyes:).
 
Great Argus said:
The extensive need to place rescued Grizzly and American Black Bears is one of the biggest challenges to the exotic bear programs, space can be filled very easily and bears are well capable of living well into their 20's and even 30's. Getting a new holder to wait for Andeans or Sloths to be available when the exhibit could have a bear pretty much immediately requires some luck.
Click to expand...
I am definitely aware of situations where a bear collection was pared down and the tropical bears suffered. (Lincoln Park and Brookfield both dropped Andean bears within a few years due to this.) Has this happened where a flexible bear space was built and the species was changed from an exotic bear to a temperate bear?

Great Argus said:
Indeed - afaik Milwaukee has no male still but all females there are part of that lineage. Decent chances there will be cubs eventually. Due to the high population numbers the lion SSP limits breeding recommendations so that cubs can be placed, but there has been quite a bit of apparent interest in keeping this line going. Most likely due to the fact Simba, Tsavo, and Enzi represent a completely separate line that is beneficial genetics-wise (even if technically a different subspecies :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming, I suspected as such. With the number of cubs born in the last couple years there should be plenty of males to go around soon from the sounds of it.
 
Great Argus said:
There are only two bears in the studbook marked as known arriving from Sri Lanka, and digging forwards from there reveals breeding with undetermined or Indian origin. Zoos that have sent bears from Europe are under the non-subspecific tab on ZTL. As a whole, very unclear and probably bold to list as known subspecies.
Click to expand...

Now that is interesting, because whoever entered the Indian sloth bear listings cited the studbook as at least one of their sources, if not the only one... sounds like maybe there were some assumptions going on there (although at least a couple of zoos imported bears from European zoos that identify them as Indian).

JVM said:
I wonder if Boris would be a Sitka then?
Click to expand...

Milwaukee is currently listed for grizzly and Alaskan Peninsular, or U. a. gyas.

Now for canids and seals (i.e. the rest of what I have for carnivores):

Gray Wolf: And again, the question here is: besides the Mexican wolves (C. l. baileyi) - for which there is a formal breeding program - are any subspecies holdings legit? It is possible for zoos here to have wild-origin rescue wolves, but also several unaccredited zoos and wolf centers identify their animals as Arctic, Tundra, Timber, etc with no information about the animal's wild origins (and sometimes, even noting that they were captive-bred at another facility).

Red Fox: lots of animals listed under the eastern subspecies V. v. fulva, including a few not within that native range. I do wonder if the taxon name here has confused any people, as it's labeled "American red fox" even though there are several subspecies of red fox in North America.

Harbor Seal: another potential mess. Currently listed are:
  • 20 for Pacific (P. v. richardsi)
  • 6 for Western Atlantic (P. v. concolor)
  • 10 for Eastern Atlantic (P. v. vitulina) - all of these are incorrect, since this is the European subspecies; however, whether they should get moved to Western Atlantic or species-level is an open question
  • 15 for species-level
Having a few different taxon listings is expected - in US facilities we should have both Pacific and Atlantic animals, along with captive-bred animals - but because most entries include very little information it's hard to tell how many of them are accurate.
 
To my knowledge, all the remaining Sloth Bears in Europe are Indian, with a separate small Sri Lankan line having died out and no cross-breeding having taken place. It stands to reason that any bears imported from Europe should then also be Indian.

In the past, many US zoos holding Sloth Bears listed their bears as the Sri Lankan subspecies. That seems to have changed over the past 10-15 years as European bears have been brought in to supplement the population. As @Great Argus mentioned, the studbook seems to indicate that the AZA population was never entirely Sri Lankan.

~Thylo
 
Coelacanth18 said:
Now that is interesting, because whoever entered the Indian sloth bear listings cited the studbook as at least one of their sources, if not the only one... sounds like maybe there were some assumptions going on there (although at least a couple of zoos imported bears from European zoos that identify them as Indian).
Click to expand...

There have been 3 imports of 2 bears each from Europe - Warsaw in the '90s, Leipzig in early 2010's, and then one from Leipzig and one from Rheine slightly after.
The studbook though does not track subspecies, I'm following the handful of known locations. There are Indian imports and Sri Lanka imports in roughly the same time frame.

ThylacineAlive said:
In the past, many US zoos holding Sloth Bears listed their bears as the Sri Lankan subspecies.
Click to expand...

Which had some merit - the only confirmable pair of Sri Lankas (at SDZ) had some surviving cubs. There are animals still traceable to this lineage, however it is unclear whether pure Sri Lanka past that pair's offspring.

ThylacineAlive said:
As @Great Argus mentioned, the studbook seems to indicate that the AZA population was never entirely Sri Lankan.
Click to expand...

Indeed not - there are a several bears still alive today that are traceable to a wild-caught Indian bear imported in 1983. Also unless Omaha knows something not in the studbook, their female is not confirmable as Sri Lankan per any information I'm aware of. She was born at Smoky Mountain Zoo Park, if anyone knows anything.

Coelacanth18 said:
Red Fox: lots of animals listed under the eastern subspecies V. v. fulva, including a few not within that native range. I do wonder if the taxon name here has confused any people, as it's labeled "American red fox" even though there are several subspecies of red fox in North America.
Click to expand...

Also I thought it was well documented that European Red Fox were widely released during the fox hunt era? I've heard a number of statements that most Red Fox in NA, especially eastern foxes, are hybrids of native and European subspecies.

Coelacanth18 said:
Harbor Seal: another potential mess. Currently listed are:
  • 20 for Pacific (P. v. richardsi)
  • 6 for Western Atlantic (P. v. concolor)
  • 10 for Eastern Atlantic (P. v. vitulina) - all of these are incorrect, since this is the European subspecies; however, whether they should get moved to Western Atlantic or species-level is an open question
  • 15 for species-level
Having a few different taxon listings is expected - in US facilities we should have both Pacific and Atlantic animals, along with captive-bred animals - but because most entries include very little information it's hard to tell how many of them are accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah this one's a tough one - the SSP/studbook doesn't track subspecies here either and so everything's just a mix. It comes down to whether the facility actually labels their seals, and correctly. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of places with both and for hybrid young. Relying on coastal proximity is not valid either apart from rehab centers.
 
@Great Argus I'll have to look for a link to the study, but I remember seeing one that found that, surprisingly, the European Red Fox genetics did not establish within native Red Fox populations.

The AZA Harbor Seal SSP actively crossbreeds seals of different subspecies. There will be plenty of purebred subspecies in zoos/aquaria simply due to wild rescues, but tracking them is very difficult and usually relies on speaking directly to the keeping facility or if there was an article/post on the animal's acquisition and origin.

I have been to many collections here on the Eastern seaboard (Jenkinson, NYA, Mystic for instance) who all have kept or currently keep mixed groups of West Atlantic and Pacific Harbor Seals. The latter two examples I know have bred mixed pups.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
There will be plenty of purebred subspecies in zoos/aquaria simply due to wild rescues, but tracking them is very difficult and usually relies on speaking directly to the keeping facility or if there was an article/post on the animal's acquisition and origin.
Click to expand...
Great Argus said:
Yeah this one's a tough one - the SSP/studbook doesn't track subspecies here either and so everything's just a mix. It comes down to whether the facility actually labels their seals, and correctly. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of places with both and for hybrid young. Relying on coastal proximity is not valid either apart from rehab centers.
Click to expand...
NOAA used to have their whole marine mammal captive data (which includes capture location) freely-available but not any longer. However, information can be requested from them, via the link on this page:
National Inventory of Marine Mammals
 
Chlidonias said:
NOAA used to have their whole marine mammal captive data (which includes capture location) freely-available but not any longer. However, information can be requested from them, via the link on this page:
National Inventory of Marine Mammals
Click to expand...
I just found their MMIR inventories online - unfortunately they don't include capture/stranding locations, so a non-starter (I'm nearly 100% sure they used to).
https://www.noaa.gov/organization/i...-reading-room/marine-mammal-inventory-reports
 
ThylacineAlive said:
@Great Argus I'll have to look for a link to the study, but I remember seeing one that found that, surprisingly, the European Red Fox genetics did not establish within native Red Fox populations.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in that if you can find it, I've long heard that Red saw a significant expansion of NA range due to those imports. Here in California the consensus I've heard is that any lowland Red Fox is introduced and only the endangered Sierra Nevada Red Fox is native - with one of the commonly cited threats being crossing with the invasive foxes.
 
Chlidonias said:
I just found their MMIR inventories online - unfortunately they don't include capture/stranding locations, so a non-starter (I'm nearly 100% sure they used to).
https://www.noaa.gov/organization/i...-reading-room/marine-mammal-inventory-reports
Click to expand...

Fascinating data set nonetheless, thanks for sharing! A lot of species I was not expecting to see go by and I'm only halfway down! Some surprising numbers too at that. Equally surprised I haven't seen a couple species at all yet.
 
Spent a couple hours diving down Harbor Seal rabbit holes (seal holes?) and ended up with this:
  • Of the 16 listed for Atlantic, P. v. concolor or P. v. vitulina (which should all be concolor anyway), I failed to find any sources or evidence for 5: Georgia Aquarium, Lincoln Park Zoo, Louisville Zoo, Milwaukee County Zoo, and Central Park Zoo
  • Of the 21 listed for Pacific, P. v. richardsi (excluding the SeaWorld parks), I failed to find any sources or evidence for 3: Fresno, Point Defiance and Seattle Aquarium. The SeaWorld parks are all listed under Pacific; I know SW San Diego at least rescues and rehabilitates the subspecies, but I believe the parks also breed seals and I don't know if they are all Pacific?
  • I was able to confirm that one facility listed only under species-level has at least Atlantic (P. v. concolor); the rest I was unable to find subspecies information for.
So unless anyone has more information about those places, I believe those 8 could be moved to species-level; the remaining ones listed under P. v. vitulina moved to P. v. concolor; and then maybe sort out what the SW parks should be listed for - and that will clean up Harbor Seals quite a bit, though not all the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top