Ligiger born in Siberia - should zoos allow these hybrids?

F.R.

A cross between a lion and a liger.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/rare-liliger-born-to-lion-liger-couple/467565.html

video

Should zoos allow hybrids like this to occur?
Are they not there to protect existing biodiversity?

Adam Khor

F.R. wrote: »

A cross between a lion and a liger.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/rare-liliger-born-to-lion-liger-couple/467565.html

video

Should zoos allow hybrids like this to occur?
Are they not there to protect existing biodiversity?

That's what most zoos tell you; only a few actually do. And even those that do need money to keep functioning.

I don´t think these sort of hybrid animals should be bred, mostly because they often develop health problems and according to an article on ligers I read once, even sort of "split personalities".

Mickeroo

That should never happen in a zoo imo. It's bad enough a Liger was born but to have Liliger be born is terrible. Seems like negligence to me at most and bad practice at least. Surely Lions and Tigers shouldn't be placed in a situation where they could mate?

Adam Khor

Mickeroo wrote: »

That should never happen in a zoo imo. It's bad enough a Liger was born but to have Liliger be born is terrible. Seems like negligence to me at most and bad practice at least. Surely Lions and Tigers shouldn't be placed in a situation where they could mate?

That reminds me of the Bear Creek sanctuary jaglions in Canada, only in this case the lioness and jaguar had been raised together and seemingly went depressed and refused to eat when they were kept apart upon reaching maturity.
The interesting part is that the jaglions are seemingly in perfect health unlike most tiger-lion hybrids. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that lions and jags are more closely related to each other than they are to tigers...

Ziphius

Adam Khor wrote: »

That reminds me of the Bear Creek sanctuary jaglions in Canada, only in this case the lioness and jaguar had been raised together and seemingly went depressed and refused to eat when they were kept apart upon reaching maturity.
The interesting part is that the jaglions are seemingly in perfect health unlike most tiger-lion hybrids. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that lions and jags are more closely related to each other than they are to tigers...

Wow, I thought they were just a myth. Are there any other examples of Panthera hybrids?

Adam Khor

Ziphius wrote: »

Wow, I thought they were just a myth. Are there any other examples of Panthera hybrids?

Yes, a few. There's the leopon, half leopard and half lion:

There's also jaguar/leopard hybrids which can be somewhat difficult to tell apart from either parent species if you're not into this XD

And there's even an instance of a tiger/leopard hybrid called a "pantig" as his father was a black panther and his mother a tigress. Interestingly, the cub was born with a leopard's normal, tawny color instead of black.
This is the only supossed pic of the pantig I could find:

There's plenty of rumors of jaguar/tiger hybrids having bred in zoos around the world but none have been confirmed. In fact it appears that the only Panthera cat that hasn´t been cross bred with others is the snow leopard (which is most closely related to the tiger).

And outside of Panthera there's been some really unexpected hybrids such as the puma/ocelot hybrid:







As well as the leopard/puma hybrid which is interesting because pumas and leopards are not particularly close to each other (pumas being more related to cheetahs).

Ziphius

Great post Adam, thanks.

Hollzy

I know this is slightly off topic but how do people feel about white tigers being bred? These occur naturally but if they were to be released into the wild they cannot camouflage properly and have a very difficult time hunting. Yet because they're pretty, zoos like to breed them...

Ziphius

Hollzy wrote: »

I know this is slightly off topic but how do people feel about white tigers being bred? These occur naturally but if they were to be released into the wild they cannot camouflage properly and have a very difficult time hunting. Yet because they're pretty, zoos like to breed them...

Against it. People (no real zoo would do this) who breed tigers for a white coat aren't acting responsibly. Inbreeding not only reduced the genetic diversity of the species but can also lead health problems for the individual animals.

Edit well, according to Wikipedia "Today, there is such a large number of white tigers in captivity that inbreeding is no longer necessary".
I guess out-breeding may have done this though I still feel it's morally dubious.

Hollzy

Yeah, I agree with everything you just said. I used to like the show The Lion Man a lot but when I saw how obsessed he was with breeding white cats it put me off a bit. I was pretty disappointed.

Adam Khor

Ziphius wrote: »

Against it. People (no real zoo would do this) who breed tigers for a white coat aren't acting responsibly. Inbreeding not only reduced the genetic diversity of the species but can also lead health problems for the individual animals.

Edit well, according to Wikipedia "Today, there is such a large number of white tigers in captivity that inbreeding is no longer necessary".
I guess out-breeding may have done this though I still feel it's morally dubious.

I'm glad to hear that inbreeding is no longer necessary. My main complaint about white tiger breeding was the health problems they had as a result- the perfect, healthy white tigers we see in the zoo or the circus are only the ones that weren´t born with malformations or even mental retardation. I am also somewhat frustrated when I go to the zoo and see only white tigers and not the orange ones, as if it was always preferable to see the white ones.

Then there's the issue of zoos spending lots of money and dedicating space to white tigers that could be used to breed and house normal colored, pure-breed tigers that could add to the captive population. I guess I understand this concern but then again, I believe (just my personal opinion) that conservationists may be making a mistake by trying desperately to save the separate subspecies of tiger instead of the species as a whole. They even deem the mix-breed tigers as "trash specimens" which seems outrageous to me; tigers are tigers, whatever subspecies they may belong to; and they play the exact same role everywhere they are found. And the populations of many subspecies are too small nowadays, and their habitats too reduced and fragmented to have any future unless they are bred in captivity with other subspecies. I think it may be too late to save the separate races but if they were cross bred then that would mean a greater genetic diversity and there may be better chances for the species as a whole to survive in the future. This obsession with subspecies and genetic "purity" has to end. I think they're missing the bigger picture. Yes, it would be sad to have distinct, unique subspecies go extinct, but it would be even worst to allow the entire species to die out because they didn´t want to contaminate the different subspecies with each other's genetics, when this may have been the only solution left to the problem.

Or thats what I think...

Hollzy

I would have no issues with different subspecies breeding to save the species as a whole. It's just the white tigers thing bothers me because if you release them into the wild (which has to be the ultimate goal), they have a very low chance of survival. Tigers are in a pretty dire situation at the moment so I would agree fully with your argument on retaining their purity. I find the "trash specimens" thing quite shocking... Obviously it would be preferable to save each of the remaining subspecies but we need to be realistic.

Galvasean

IMO such crossbreeds serve as little more than oddities to boost income to zoos. The idea of purposefully breeding them does not strike me as being conservationally minded at all.

Ziphius

Adam Khor wrote: »

I guess I understand this concern but then again, I believe (just my personal opinion) that conservationists may be making a mistake by trying desperately to save the separate subspecies of tiger instead of the species as a whole. They even deem the mix-breed tigers as "trash specimens" which seems outrageous to me; tigers are tigers, whatever subspecies they may belong to; and they play the exact same role everywhere they are found.

I haven’t read the conservation literature in a while so perhaps I’m completely wrong but, my understanding is that in situ conservation (e.g. habitat protection) is preferable in most cases to ex situ conservation (e.g. zoos, botanic gardens). Conserving habitat and ecosystems in their pristine pre disturbance state would entail maintaining the specific sub species. I also imagine, and I haven’t looked any stats for this, that captive tiger populations are sufficiently diverse that inter breeding between sub species isn’t necessary at this stage.

Introducing one sub species into another’s former range is an interesting idea. Having tigers of one sort would surely be preferable to having none at all from an ecological view even if they aren’t the “native” tiger. I haven’t read anything on this idea but there have been far weirder suggestions, introducing African mega fauna such as elephants and cheetahs into North America for example. These haven’t found much support.

Hollzy wrote: »

I would have no issues with different subspecies breeding to save the species as a whole. It's just the white tigers thing bothers me because if you release them into the wild (which has to be the ultimate goal), they have a very low chance of survival. Tigers are in a pretty dire situation at the moment so I would agree fully with your argument on retaining their purity. I find the "trash specimens" thing quite shocking... Obviously it would be preferable to save each of the remaining subspecies but we need to be realistic.

I doubt many zoo bred tigers ever end up in the wild. Zoos (at least European ones) act more as a repository of animals and a system to ensure genetic diversity.

To be honest I don't think tigers will be extinct anytime soon. There is a huge captive population, particularly in the US. I've heard there are more tigers in private collections in the US than in the wild in Asia.

Capt'n Midnight

Adam Khor

Ziphius wrote: »

Introducing one sub species into another’s former range is an interesting idea. Having tigers of one sort would surely be preferable to having none at all from an ecological view even if they aren’t the “native” tiger. I haven’t read anything on this idea but there have been far weirder suggestions, introducing African mega fauna such as elephants and cheetahs into North America for example. These haven’t found much support.

If tigers of any subspecies (or even cross-bred like the ones in most zoos) were introduced into the places were they have dissappeared, surely they would eventually adapt and give rise to new "native subspecies" anyways?
IMO what matters is the species itself, and if the moment comes when, for example, Sumatran or Siberian tigers become too scarce to maintain their own genetic diversity, then this could be the most logic course of action.

Ziphius wrote: »

To be honest I don't think tigers will be extinct anytime soon. There is a huge captive population, particularly in the US. I've heard there are more tigers in private collections in the US than in the wild in Asia.

That is true. That's why I think the best chance of survival for the species may be these mix-breed captive tigers. U-U

steddyeddy

IMHO the only value of hybrids was when we needed to ascertain wheter a group of animals fitted into one species or many. The old definition of a species is terrible in my opinion. It basically says a species is any animal that can breed and produce viable offspring with another of its kind. IE if two animals can mate and produce fertile of spring then there the same species. This falls down when we find out that some species can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

In days gone by hybrids were used to test the species hypothesis. Another reason hybrids were bred is because zoologists want to determine if behaviour has a genetic component amongst other things. EG bees were cross bred and they wanted to see what colony hygiene was practiced by the hybrids in comparison to the pure bred specimens. Colony hygiene involves worker bees removing corpses from the hives which minimises the risk of pathogens spreading. Some bee species are better at it than others.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

IMHO the only value of hybrids was when we needed to ascertain wheter a group of animals fitted into one species or many.The old definition of a species is terrible in my opinion. It basically says a species is any animal that can breed and produce viable offspring with another of its kind. IE if two animals can mate and produce fertile of spring then there the same species. This falls down when we find out that some species can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Really? What would you replace the biological species concept with?

steddyeddy

Ziphius wrote: »

Really? What would you replace the biological species concept with?

I would replace it with a definition that defines a species by a shared genotype and evidence of that genotype originating as a result of gene flow away from the parent species. Its a rough draft but it can be worked on!

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would replace it with a definition that defines a species by a shared genotype and evidence of that genotype originating as a result of gene flow away from the parent species. Its a rough draft but it can be worked on!

Okay, so a kind a cross between the phylogenetic species concept (based on relationship) and the morpho species (based shape)? I think, personally, the biological species is the best. Though, I'd take a less stringent definition. If animals don't interbreed in their natural environment I would count them as separate species. Tigers and lions do not breed in the wild so I consider them separate species.

steddyeddy

Ziphius wrote: »

Okay, so a kind a cross between the phylogenetic species concept (based on relationship) and the morpho species (based shape)? I think, personally, the biological species is the best. Though, I'd take a less stringent definition. If animals don't interbreed in their natural environment I would count them as separate species. Tigers and lions do not breed in the wild so I consider them separate species.

Well they dont encounter each other in the wild. As regards the definition its not going anywhere anyway but genetics and proteomics have been used to reclassify the existing taxonomy so I think they should get a look in to the definition of the species.

Adam Khor

Ziphius wrote: »

Okay, so a kind a cross between the phylogenetic species concept (based on relationship) and the morpho species (based shape)? I think, personally, the biological species is the best. Though, I'd take a less stringent definition. If animals don't interbreed in their natural environment I would count them as separate species. Tigers and lions do not breed in the wild so I consider them separate species.

But there are some species that do breed in the wild at times, such as Cuban/American crocodiles, wolves and coyotes, some whales... and they still have different physical and behavioral traits that mark them as different animals.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well they dont encounter each other in the wild. As regards the definition its not going anywhere anyway but genetics and proteomics have been used to reclassify the existing taxonomy so I think they should get a look in to the definition of the species.

No, I don't imagine they do. Though there do exist species that can interbreed and do inhabit the same habitat. I remember reading about cichlid fish that would only interbreed under certain lighting conditions because this meant they couldn't distinguish between their colours.

Adam Khor wrote: »

But there are some species that do breed in the wild at times, such as Cuban/American crocodiles, wolves and coyotes, some whales... and they still have different physical and behavioral traits that mark them as different animals.

Ah, but this is the issue. Do these traits actually mean they are separate species. I think any species definition is going to be some kind of compromise. It's an issue that most biologists would rather ignore tbh.

steddyeddy

Yes indeed Z. There are several barriars to interbreeding. Some are physical and some are behavioural as you said.

Adam Khor

Ziphius wrote: »

Ah, but this is the issue. Do these traits actually mean they are separate species. I think any species definition is going to be some kind of compromise. It's an issue that most biologists would rather ignore tbh.

Well, guess its kinda pointless anyways Then again, I'm a layman and so I go for the obvious traits. To me, wolf and dog will always be different species regardless of how incredibly similar they are, genetically...
I know its not a "scientific" approach but it works fine for me.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Well, guess its kinda pointless anyways Then again, I'm a layman and so I go for the obvious traits. To me, wolf and dog will always be different species regardless of how incredibly similar they are, genetically...
I know its not a "scientific" approach but it works fine for me.

I was talking about this with friends the other day. All the best zoologists were laymen and women. Jane Goodal and Dian Fossey for instance. Neither of them were educated as zoologists. Both were self taught.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was talking about this with friends the other day. All the best zoologists were laymen and women. Jane Goodal and Dian Fossey for instance. Neither of them were educated as zoologist. Both were self taught.

Yeah, that seems to happen a lot XD

I guess it may have to do with the fact that the people who study it as a career may be conditioned to accept the viewpoints of their teachers (and the established thinking) as truth and it may be more difficult for them to think outside the box. Just a thought, tho.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was talking about this with friends the other day. All the best zoologists were laymen and women. Jane Goodal and Dian Fossey for instance. Neither of them were educated as zoologist. Both were self taught.

Even Darwin was a geologist :rolleyes::p

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Yeah, that seems to happen a lot XD

I guess it may have to do with the fact that the people who study it as a career may be conditioned to accept the viewpoints of their teachers (and the established thinking) as truth and it may be more difficult for them to think outside the box. Just a thought, tho.

Its true Adam. The observational rules used when observing animals have led to some really skewed ways of looking at things. Creativity and imagination is very important in all science and some zoology methods stifle that.

recedite

The way I see it is this; its a continuum, not a line in the sand.
If animals don't breed in the wild, they become a separate species.
That is not the same as saying they are a separate species because they don't breed in the wild.
In the ligers, the males are sterile, the females are fertile. Further removed, both sexes are sterile. Further removed again, no hybridization is possible at all.

I'm guessing that a ligiger would be very fertile crossed with a lion, but not with a tiger.

I have to say, that Liger, the mother, is a magnificent looking animal.

aquina

Ziphius wrote: »

Okay, so a kind a cross between the phylogenetic species concept (based on relationship) and the morpho species (based shape)? I think, personally, the biological species is the best. Though, I'd take a less stringent definition. If animals don't interbreed in their natural environment I would count them as separate species. Tigers and lions do not breed in the wild so I consider them separate species.

The biological species concept only applies to certain organisms who reproduce sexually i.e. mate. It is impossible to apply it throughout the animal kingdom as it cannot apply to asexual organisms.

Determining a species or subspecies more often than not uses a combination of concepts. But as I once read "If it saves a forest then lets call it a species" which shows the entire process to be open to personal and possibly bias interpretation.

And if I recall correctly Darwin trained as a doctor before turning to natural history not geology...