It’s still a real animal it’s just a fur mutation basically a reskin or cosmetic it’s not mythical and it’s not unrealistic research into the mutations listed!I’m liking the fact that planZoo is more or less realistic (apart from a couple little mistakes or bugs). So id rather keep it like that personally. Maybe in a couple years when they’ve exhausted all animals and add a mythological creatures DLC while grasping at straws they can add less realistic skin tones for existing animals too.
If it’s Very very very rare that no one has ever seen or photographed, then it’s probs best keeping it that way and not adding it to the game just yet.
I did indeed reply to that in a massive arguement but I dont know if I swore or what but it was deleted within 5-10mins out of no whereI love how he replies to every single post with a pinch of passive aggression,but completely ignores my post,which debunked all of his "arguments".
It’s not stripeless yet in game I breed them all the time and it has faint brown stripes and I already knew everything he/she said and then retaliated with a huge arguement that proved her wrong but it was deleted almost instantlyI'm happy that you're writing this to teach other People more about Mutations. Even if there is no known Case of a completely melanistic Lion, a partially melanistic Lion was once born in Glasgow Zoo but it was sterile. http://glasgowzoo.co.uk/articles/carnivores/zoolions.php
I would really like a pseudo-melanistic Tiger and if someone wants a white stripe less Tiger, I think they should try it with Siberian Tigers. The Mutation of the Siberian Tiger seem to be white and stripe less but I'm not sure because I saw only the Icon.
Can Siberian Tigers even be leucistic? The Zoopedia says there were white Siberian Tigers born but as far as I know only Bengal Tigers and the Offspring of Bengal Tigers and Siberian Tigers can be leucistic. But this wouldn't really count because it would be no pure Siberian Tiger
I think if we had somes decent variation in the normal animals coat colours/patterns, people wouldn't be asking for rare mutations as much. Sadly it's very lacking.Uhh, it would have be great to have at least a few different noticable regular animal coats (color shade/pattern differnece), maybe one or two rare (recessive) colors + one/two mutations... but just more variety in regular coats would be great...
I think all white Tigers (at least in Captivity) are the Descendants of one white Bengal Tiger that was captured in the Wild. White "Siberian" Tigers also exist but they are as far as I know all Bengal x Siberian Tiger CrossbreedsI thought white tigers are from captive crossbreeding of a Bengal x Siberian.
Ah, I edited that - it's the ghost/snow white tigers (white ones without the obvious stripes) that seem to come from a zoo breeding of a bengal x bengal with siberian ancestry.I think all white Tigers (at least in Captivity) are the Descendants of one white Bengal Tiger that was captured in the Wild
Check my post above this quote. Wooly cheetahs are in fact a thing, they're just not generally /called/ that.
Woolly cheetahs were reported in the 19th century as a separate species of cheetah that had longer, denser fur. Several specimens were obtained. It may be that creatures were in fact the same species as the present-day cheetah, but with a genetic disposition to long fur. The woolly cheetah has, in any case, vanished.
In 1877, Philip Sclater of the Zoological Society of London wrote of a recent acquisition by the zoo: It presents generally the appearance of a cheetah, but is thicker in the body, and has shorter and stouter limbs, and a much thicker tail. When adult it will probably be considerably larger than the cheetah, and is larger even now than our three specimens of that animal. The fur is much more woolly and dense than in the cheetah, as is particularly noticeable on the ears, mane and tail.
Woolly cheetahs were observed to have thicker bodies and stouter limbs than normal cheetahs, although this may have been a misleading appearance given by the long hair. They had dense, woolly hair especially on the tail and neck where it formed a ruff or mane. The long fur made the normal spotted cheetah pattern indistinct and the animals appeared pale fawn with dark, round blotches.
Long hair in cats is due to recessive genes, so the pertinent gene here may still be present in a few individuals. However, the cheetah gene pool is unusually uniform so the lack of modern longhaired cheetahs means the mutation has probably vanished.
The whole of the body is of a pale isabelline colour, rather paler on the belly and lower parts, but covered all over, including the belly, with roundish dark fulvous blotches. There are no traces of the black spots which are so conspicuous in all of the varieties of the cheetah which I have seen, nor of the characteristic black line between the mouth and eye.
Although described as blotched, a painting of the cheetah depicts it as freckled and the artist mistakenly added "eyeliner" markings which were not present in the actual specimen. In 1878, a second woolly cheetah was reported as a preserved specimen in the South African Museum. Both the London and South African specimens had come from Beaufort West. In 1884, a third skin was obtained from the same area, though this had more distinct spots and was a little smaller. By the 1880s, the trophy hunters had eliminated the woolly cheetah.
In Harmsworth Natural History (1910), R Lydekker wrote of the "hunting leopard" or "chita" (old spelling of cheetah) in which he distinguished it from the "normal" cheetah: "The hunting leopard of South Africa has been stated to differ from the Indian animal in its stouter build, thicker tail, and denser and more woolly fur, the longest hairs occurring on the neck, ears, and tail. This woolly hunting leopard was regarded by its describer as a distinct species (Cynaelurus lanius), but it is, at most, only a local race, of which the proper name is C. jubatus guttatus."
Nice pictures of the King Cheetah though.I just wanna point out @ whoever said wooly cheetahs aren't a thing...
A ""wooly"" cheetah is literally just a longhaired cheetah, which does in fact exist- there are a lot of longhaired cheetahs among the Asiatic/Iranian cheetah population.
Okay, but ""wooly"" as mentioned in the cheetah variant diagram listed in the OP is just "long-haired", as it says on the image, and long-haired cheetahs clearly exist.source:https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Cheetah.htm
Woolly cheetah's don't exist anymore.
And they where spotless.
Nice pictures of the King Cheetah though.
Ah my mistake.Okay, but ""wooly"" as mentioned in the cheetah variant diagram listed in the OP is just "long-haired", as it says on the image, and long-haired cheetahs clearly exist.
Also, those... aren't King Cheetahs. They're normal Asiatic/Iranian cheetahs, with normal spots.
THIS is a King Cheetah:
"King Cheetah" refers to the spot pattern and "striped" look, not fur length. Granted, King Cheetahs do seem to have longer fur more often, and tend to keep their "neck mane", but in order for a cheetah to be a King Cheetah, it must have the distinct "King Cheetah" fur pattern, which none of those images I posted earlier have.
I don't think the OP was referring to the species, though- they v likely just meant "long haired cheetah variant" lol.Ah my mistake.
Those animals do look fantastic.
And yes, long haired cheetah, sure that is possible. But they ain't Woolly cheetahs, those are a completely (gone) species.