Subspecific Tigers in US Zoos

Neva said:
Agreed, it would be probably easier than with many other subspecies (or "populations" as it depends on new/older taxonomy) but I still doubt it would be reasonable as Indian leopard seems to "cope" with surviving better than other subspecies already mentioned. If there would be space and possibility to start a new programme I would put all the work into maybe more challenging but also more sensible project(s), as Indochinese or Javan (or Arabian) leopards need urgent actions more.

For Javan I would go also with argument that something already started. Wouldn't be possible to do the same as with Baird's tapirs - move the programme to US?

I'm sorry for confusion, I definitely didn't mean to do this, I get used to "ssp = subspecies" too much...
Click to expand...
Javan would be an option, although I would personally hate to see them leave Europe. Two programs would also be possible. I think though that it would be better to start a new program for one of the other two subspecies in big trouble (Arabian or Indochinese) in the US and let the Javan grow in Europe.

I already figured the confusion wasn't on purpose, I know the feeling of being a bit too used to things and people not understanding it (and the opposite as well).
 
Leopards are fascinating and I certainly would like to see another subspecies in the US myself, but last I checked the cat listed in the title above was "tiger" ;) Let's get this thread back on topic, shall we?

I forgot that I was going to update this thread a day or two after I started it; thankfully a link to it in another thread and these recent posts reminded me to do so. Zoos that I accidentally left off before are Buffalo Zoo (Amur), San Antonio Zoo (Sumatran), and Greensboro Science Center (also Sumatran).

Additionally, after some consideration I am in agreement with @nczoofan that some of the claims about subspecific tigers are highly suspect, especially given the propensity of many non-accredited zoos to make incorrect claims such as how their tigers are "Bengal" (rather than generic hybrids), "Indochinese" (which should mean Malayan, but are likely neither), and about how white tigers are an endangered taxa of their own (they are just a color morph). Given this, I have decided to lean in the other direction and do this list conservatively, only listing non-accredited zoos if they fit one of the following criteria: 1) their tigers are confirmed to be subspecific, 2) the zoo was recently accredited (making it likely that they recently participated in subspecific programs), or 3) the zoo is known to participate in subspecific programs already (as was discussed in the case of Hattiesburg and Alaska).

Here is the revised list:

Amur Tiger, Panthera tigris altaica (46 facilities)
*Alaska Zoo, AK
Blank Park Zoo, IA
Bramble Park Zoo, SD
Bronx Zoo, NY
Brookfield Zoo, IL
Buffalo Zoo, NY
Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, CO
Cleveland Zoo, OH
Columbus Zoo, OH
Como Park Zoo, MN
Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo, CT
Denver Zoo, CO
Detroit Zoo, MI
Erie Zoo, PA
Great Plains Zoo, SD
Henry Vilas Zoo, WI
Hogle Zoo, UT
Idaho Falls Zoo, ID
Indianapolis Zoo, IN
John Ball Zoo, MI
Lake Superior Zoo, MN
Lee Simmons Wildlife Safari, NE
Mesker Park Zoo, IN
Milwaukee County Zoo, WI
Minnesota Zoo, MN
Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, NE
Oregon Zoo, OR
Peoria Zoo, IL
Philadelphia Zoo, PA
*Pittsburgh Zoo, PA
Potawatomi Zoo, IN
Potter Park Zoo, MI
Racine Zoo, WI
Riverbanks Zoo, SC
Riverside Discovery Center, NE
Rolling Hills Zoo, KS
Roosevelt Park Zoo, ND
Rosamond Gifford Zoo, NY
San Francisco Zoo, CA
Sedgwick County Zoo, KS
Seneca Park Zoo, NY
Smithsonian's National Zoo, DC
St. Louis Zoo, MO
Toledo Zoo, OH
Zoo Boise, ID
*ZooMontana, MT

Malayan Tiger, Panthera tigris jacksoni (25 facilities)
ABQ BioPark, NM
Alexandria Zoo, LA
BREC's Baton Rouge Zoo, LA
Bronx Zoo, NY
Audubon Zoo, LA
Jacksonville Zoo, FL
Fort Worth Zoo, TX
Charles Paddock Zoo, CA
Cincinnati Zoo, OH
Dickerson Park Zoo, MO
*EFBC's Feline Conservation Center, CA
Ellen Trout Zoo, TX
El Paso Zoo, TX
Fresno Chaffee Zoo, CA
Houston Zoo, TX
Little Rock Zoo, AR
Naples Zoo, FL
Reid Park Zoo, AZ
San Diego Zoo, CA
Sunset Zoo, KS
Tulsa Zoo, OK
Virginia Zoo, VA
Woodland Park Zoo, WA
ZooTampa, FL
Zoo Knoxville, TN

Sumatran Tiger, Panthera tigris sondaica/sumatrae (28 facilities)
BREC's Baton Rouge Zoo, LA
Cameron Park Zoo, TX
Dallas Zoo, TX
Disney's Animal Kingdom, FL
Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, IN
Greensboro Science Center, NC
*Hattiesburg Zoo, MS
Honolulu Zoo, HI
Jacksonville Zoo, FL
Kansas City Zoo, MO
Landry's Downtown Aquarium, CO
Lincoln Children's Zoo, NE
Los Angeles Zoo, CA
Louisville Zoo, KY
Memphis Zoo, TN
Miller Park Zoo, IL
Nashville Zoo, TN
Oklahoma City Zoo, OK
Phoenix Zoo, AZ
Point Defiance Zoo, WA
San Antonio Zoo, TX
San Diego Safari Park, CA
San Francisco Zoo, CA
Smithsonian's National Zoo, DC
Topeka Zoo, KS
Zoo Miami, FL
Wildlife Safari, OR
Zoo Atlanta, GA

I additionally took note of AZA facilities that still hold generic tigers:

Generic Tiger (13 facilities)
Abilene Zoo, TX
Alexandria Zoo, LA
Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, FL
Caldwell Zoo, TX
Chahinkapa Zoo, ND
Dakota Zoo, ND
Fort Worth Zoo, TX
Franklin Park Zoo, MA
Gladys Porter Zoo, TX
Landry's Downtown Aquarium, TX
Memphis Zoo, TN
Oakland Zoo, CA
Palm Beach Zoo, FL
 
Given the ubiquity of tigers, I also became curious about what zoos do *not* have tigers. To go through every accredited and major non-accredited zoo would be somewhat tedious (and many are specialty facilities anyway), so instead I decided to compare my list here to the list of zoos in @snowleopard and @Tim Brown's new book America's Top 100 Zoos & Aquariums. While this doesn't give a complete or comprehensive picture, I think it works well enough to give a picture of how widespread tigers are in major zoos and how much space still exists for potential growth.

Of the 80 zoos on their list (aquariums were excluded), 68 currently have tigers - that's 85% of the list. Here are the 12 that currently do not:

Akron Zoo
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Binder Park Zoo
Birmingham Zoo
Central Park Zoo
Lincoln Park Zoo
The Living Desert Zoo/Gardens
Maryland Zoo
North Carolina Zoo
Roger Williams Park Zoo
Sacramento Zoo
Santa Barbara Zoo

The lack of tigers at some of these zoos is easily explainable. ASDM and Living Desert are desert-focused (the former specifically native desert), a theme tigers do not fit into. Maryland and North Carolina currently have only African and North American species. Central Park Zoo has a very small footprint (~6 acres) and keeps few large animals of any kind. Two zoos, Birmingham and Lincoln Park, phased out their tigers recently. The latter did so in order to convert their outdated and overstocked cat house into an exclusively lion-focused exhibit; I'm unsure what the situation is at the former.

This list appears destined to shrink, however. Akron will have Sumatran tigers next year. North Carolina also has plans to add tigers into a future Asian complex, while Roger Williams lists them in their 20 year master plan. Sacramento (currently with a limited footprint) has plans to relocate to a new and larger location; they phased out tigers in the past and it seems likely that under that scenario they would make a return. Lincoln Park would probably have to tear up existing exhibit space to bring tigers back, which seems unlikely in the short-term; that leaves Binder Park, Birmingham, and Santa Barbara as potentially the only zoos in that list of 80 without plans to eventually exhibit tigers and no obvious reason not to. That being said, since at least two zoos phased tigers out recently it may be that a couple more follow suit in the time it takes for these facilities to add them.

Either way, it seems that the two most likely avenues for adding potential space for breeding programs would be 1) converting generic tiger spaces to use for subspecific animals, and 2) renovating existing tiger facilities to hold more animals. Another potential avenue would be expanding the breeding programs to more non-accredited zoos; arguments could be made for or against this, but regardless it does not seem likely to happen at this point in time. Meanwhile, the number of large and mid-tier zoos holding tigers seems to be nearing its practical cap, a feat seen with few other animals - a testament to their popularity.
 
@Coelacanth18 I really appreciate your analysis and it makes for fascinating reading. When you break it down, very few major American zoos do not have a tiger exhibit, with zoos like North Carolina and Akron soon adding tigers and yet others (Sacramento and Lincoln Park) recently phasing them out.

If you feel so inclined, it would be intriguing to take a look at the 80 zoos in my book and make a breakdown of which ones have lions, elephants, hippos, rhinos, great apes, otters, lemurs, etc. A task for someone! :) After that, an individual could look at the 20 aquariums and see which ones have pinnipeds, cetaceans, etc. :p
 
snowleopard said:
If you feel so inclined, it would be intriguing to take a look at the 80 zoos in my book and make a breakdown of which ones have lions, elephants, hippos, rhinos, great apes, otters, lemurs, etc. A task for someone! :) After that, an individual could look at the 20 aquariums and see which ones have pinnipeds, cetaceans, etc. :p
Click to expand...

I agree, that sounds like a really interesting idea. I actually don't think it would take me that long to accomplish compared to the species list work I've done before: with a list of only 80-100 places to examine and only the most popular types of animals being looked at, it could be done with a simple checklist approach in a small number of hours.

I'll look into it and if it works out I'll make a separate thread for it :)
 
Slightly off-topic but did I read somewhere that there are thought to be some purebred subspecies among the private/ rescue collections? If so is anything being done to bring them into breeding programmes?
 
Almost all of these are probably so-called purebred, just like the so-called pure bengals in most zoos.
 
SHAVINGTONZOO said:
Slightly off-topic but did I read somewhere that there are thought to be some purebred subspecies among the private/ rescue collections? If so is anything being done to bring them into breeding programmes?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a (very) small number of purebred tigers in the private sector and in sanctuaries (there have been in the past), but cannot confirm if that's the case at present. Even if there was, there are so many claims of purebred tigers - most of which would not be verifiable by pedigree - that it would be a significant task to locate, confirm, and incorporate them. Most likely they would be Amur, which I suspect is already the most secure program demographically and genetically based on numbers and international holdings.
 
Birmingham didn't phase out. Their Malayan Tiger died. They are currently still in the planning/site prep for transforming the Predator Building into an indoor/outdoor habitat for Orangutans, Gibbons, various small Asian mammals, Red Panda, Komodo Dragons, and Tigers. They probably will work with Malayan Tigers again once the facility is upgraded. Though a recent chat with a keeper said Sumatran are also a possibility.
 
FWIW, Mammals of the World/Bucknell, ADW, and ITIS all agree on 8 subspecies of tiger, although ADW notes that three of these (Bali, Caspian & Javan) are probably extinct.
Subspecies Panthera tigris altaica Temminck, 1844 – Siberian tiger, Amur tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905) – South China tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris balica Schwarz, 1912 – Bali tiger, Balinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris corbetti Mazak, 1968 – Corbett's tiger, Indochinese tiger, Indo-Chinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica Temminck, 1844 – Javan tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sumatrae Pocock, 1929 – Sumatran tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris tigris (Linnaeus, 1758) – Bengal tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris virgata (Illiger, 1815) – Caspian tiger

Wikipedia presents the case for just two subspecies, with a total of nine sub-subspecies, the same three of which are extinct.
 
Gomphothere said:
FWIW, Mammals of the World/Bucknell, ADW, and ITIS all agree on 8 subspecies of tiger, although ADW notes that three of these (Bali, Caspian & Javan) are probably extinct.
Subspecies Panthera tigris altaica Temminck, 1844 – Siberian tiger, Amur tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905) – South China tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris balica Schwarz, 1912 – Bali tiger, Balinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris corbetti Mazak, 1968 – Corbett's tiger, Indochinese tiger, Indo-Chinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica Temminck, 1844 – Javan tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sumatrae Pocock, 1929 – Sumatran tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris tigris (Linnaeus, 1758) – Bengal tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris virgata (Illiger, 1815) – Caspian tiger

Wikipedia presents the case for just two subspecies, with a total of nine sub-subspecies, the same three of which are extinct.
Click to expand...
The two subspecies model is currently used by IUCN.
 
Arizona Docent said:
I don't understand the way this is worded. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but how can you have two subspecies with a total of nine subspecies?
Click to expand...
Note that I wrote nine sub-subspecies. Wikipedia took what had been nine subspecies and distributed them between the new model two subspecies.
 
birdsandbats said:
The two subspecies model is currently used by IUCN.
Click to expand...

The two subspecies model was written by the IUCN :p

Gomphothere said:
FWIW, Mammals of the World/Bucknell, ADW, and ITIS all agree on 8 subspecies of tiger, although ADW notes that three of these (Bali, Caspian & Javan) are probably extinct.
Subspecies Panthera tigris altaica Temminck, 1844 – Siberian tiger, Amur tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905) – South China tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris balica Schwarz, 1912 – Bali tiger, Balinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris corbetti Mazak, 1968 – Corbett's tiger, Indochinese tiger, Indo-Chinese tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sondaica Temminck, 1844 – Javan tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris sumatrae Pocock, 1929 – Sumatran tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris tigris (Linnaeus, 1758) – Bengal tiger
Subspecies Panthera tigris virgata (Illiger, 1815) – Caspian tiger

Wikipedia presents the case for just two subspecies, with a total of nine sub-subspecies, the same three of which are extinct.
Click to expand...

What's interesting to me here is that virgata is pretty well established as a synonym of altaica at this point. Meanwhile, jacksoni is abandoned entirely here.

Arizona Docent said:
I don't understand the way this is worded. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but how can you have two subspecies with a total of nine subspecies?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia editors love to jump at the latest taxonomy updates but also don't want to lose the extensive articles written about the different subspecies so they simply kept everything the same as it always was but then edited the Latin names to all either say P. t. tigris or sondaica :D

The Wikipedia page for giraffes is my preferred way to do this, where they simply provide species lists for all the proposed theories.

~Thylo
 
Arizona Docent said:
As you point out, I do notice (and fully support) the location of Amur tigers in northern/cooler states and Sumatran and Malayan in southern/warmer states. I wish the AZA would do the same with leopards and open more space in the north for the Amur leopards they currently work with. Then bring in a warmer subspecies for the south. Arabian leopard would be ideal but not realistic, so how about Indian or Sri Lanka or Indochinese or Malayan?

BTW I have seen a couple non-AZA facilites that claim to have Indochinese tiger. As far as I know there are none of these in the USA. Malayan were split off from Indochinese several years ago and it could be these facilities are simply using the old lumped taxonomy. Or maybe they are generic tigers and whoever they got them from told them it was Indochinese.
Click to expand...
Are Indochinese in European collections? I agree 100% with Amur tigers being kept in cold weather zoos. They can be kept outside year round then. Curious if the zoos that have generics will obtain one of the three being managed in the USA after their generics die. I agree with you say about leopards. Bring in some warm weather species for the south. While we are at it some Asiatic lions too. Sorry, I've now taken the thread a tad off topic.
 
@elefante Most (if not all) AZA facilities have one or two of the three managed subspecies and NOT generic tigers. There are a lot of generic or hybrid tigers in non-AZA facilities, but the chances of them switching to one of the managed subspecies are slim. The AZA as a general rule (there are exceptions) refuses to work with non-AZA facilities. (I think this is a mistake, but that's how it is). I also don't know of any European zoos that have Indochinese tigers instead of Malayan tigers (assuming you split the two).
 
Arizona Docent said:
@elefante Most (if not all) AZA facilities have one or two of the three managed subspecies and NOT generic tigers. There are a lot of generic or hybrid tigers in non-AZA facilities, but the chances of them switching to one of the managed subspecies are slim. The AZA as a general rule (there are exceptions) refuses to work with non-AZA facilities. (I think this is a mistake, but that's how it is). I also don't know of any European zoos that have Indochinese tigers instead of Malayan tigers (assuming you split the two).
Click to expand...

There are a few AZA zoos that still keep generic tigers, though these are usually animals they took in as rescues. Franklin Park Zoo is one such facility. I'd imagine they'll eventually switch to one of the managed subspecies (likely Amur given their geographic location) once their current animals die off. I believe DAK has gone/is going down this route, switching from generic tigers to Sumatran.

The only non-AZA institutions I know of who are working within the AZA tigers are White Oak and the Exotic Feline Breeding Compound.

Tierpark Berlin still claims their tigers are Indochinese but they are Malayan, as is the rest of the European population.

~Thylo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top