Please add the Sumatran Tiger

They are critically endangered and also the smallest tiger and most widespread in captivity particularly in Australia, I watched a very emotional documentary on Sumatran Tigers, and I want them to be added because of these points
 
I could see Malayan tapirs,sun bears, and the Sumatran tiger or rhino but as far as the Sumatran elephant goes no thanks. If they were going to go the route of another elephant I’d rather see the Pygmy or forest elephant. Sumatran rhino would be cool but I’d rather have at least one or both African rhinos any day.
 
If I made Planet Zoo, I would put all of my love for all animals into it, I would give people great selection to expand and explore the natural world and the diversity it wields
 
The Sumatran tiger is basically the only hard clone animal that I want. I honestly think it's so weird they went with the Bengal tiger over the Sumatran. Pure Bengal tigers are incredibly rare in captivity outside of South Asia and there isn't nearly as large a focus on them in captive breeding programmes as there is on the Sumatran.
 
The Sumatran tiger is basically the only hard clone animal that I want. I honestly think it's so weird they went with the Bengal tiger over the Sumatran. Pure Bengal tigers are incredibly rare in captivity outside of South Asia and there isn't nearly as large a focus on them in captive breeding programmes as there is on the Sumatran.
Oh really? I never stop learning things in this forum! I love it. From my ignorance, I always associate tigers automatically with the Bengal tiger. In Spain, they are quite common, but it seems that's not the case abroad.

I think this might be one of those cases in which the "general public" associate one animal with one species, although the animal they are watching in the zoo is actually another species. For instance, the leopard or the lion, many people think they are watching an African animal, but the truth is that what they are watching are Asian subspecies.
 
[/QUOTE]
Oh really? I never stop learning things in this forum! I love it. From my ignorance, I always associate tigers automatically with the Bengal tiger. In Spain, they are quite common, but it seems that's not the case abroad.

I think this might be one of those cases in which the "general public" associate one animal with one species, although the animal they are watching in the zoo is actually another species. For instance, the leopard or the lion, many people think they are watching an African animal, but the truth is that what they are watching are Asian subspecies.
NZFanatic is right. There aren't any pure Bengal tigers in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. It is however not uncommon for zoos to mis-sign species, which may be in the case in Spain if they really have something labeled as a Bengal tiger. For some reason Bengal does seem to be synonymous with Tiger for the general public, and I can only blame this phenomenon to a very small degree on Zoo Tycoon.
 
I'm cool with a Sumatran tiger in a sort of "reskins" pack, if it comes at the end of Year 2 or sometime in Year 3, provided we have gotten aviaries and aquatic animals by then. I'd expect it to be in a pack of 6-8 animals along with species like the Malayan tapir, Black-and-white Ruffed lemur, Nile crocodile etc. Those types of animals would add a lot to the game and I would love to have them, I'd just like to get more substantial game-changing things before.
 
NZFanatic is right. There aren't any pure Bengal tigers in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. It is however not uncommon for zoos to mis-sign species, which may be in the case in Spain if they really have something labeled as a Bengal tiger. For some reason Bengal does seem to be synonymous with Tiger for the general public, and I can only blame this phenomenon to a very small degree on Zoo Tycoon.
I don't know the reason behind it, but I don't think it's Zoo Tycoon fault. If you check the website of many Spanish zoos, they rarely specify and just call all tigers (panthera tigris) as Bengal tigers (panthera tigris tigris), so visitors get educated like that. Some examples here:

https://www.zoomadrid.com/en/animals/bengal-tiger (this one seems to be a true Bengal tiger)


Maybe, this also happens in other countries. I don't know. This game is making me learn so many things!
 
Oh really? I never stop learning things in this forum! I love it. From my ignorance, I always associate tigers automatically with the Bengal tiger. In Spain, they are quite common, but it seems that's not the case abroad.
There's a fair bit to unpack here.

So, first of all, new taxonomical evidence suggests that there are actually only two tiger subspecies. You have the "mainland tiger" (Panthera tigris tigris, comprising the Bengal, Siberian, South China, Malayan, Indochinese, and extinct Caspian subpopulations) and the "Sunda tiger" (Panthera tigris sondaica, comprising of the Sumatran and the extinct Javan and Bali subpopulations). Many zoos haven't yet caught up with this new information yet. So "Bengal tiger" refers to only one isolated population of a single subspecies, not a distinct subspecies in its own right.

On top of that, most captive "Bengal" tigers are actually hybridised between Bengals and Siberian tigers, and often Indochinese tigers (in much the same way that captive populations of the Barbary lion subpopulation still exist, but are largely mixed with other populations of the northern lion (Panthera leo leo).

So there's a good chance your Spanish zoos are a little behind with new knowledge (as I said, many zoos tend to be, so it isn't limited to Spain or anything) or that they have hybridised Bengal tigers they are simply applying the Bengal name to (without truly realising it). Supposedly this is a huge problem with captive chimpanzee breeding programmes. When I was at Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland there were discussions around doing intensive DNA analysis to figure out exactly where their chimps came from, because they didn't know which subspecies they belonged to.
 
There's a fair bit to unpack here.

So, first of all, new taxonomical evidence suggests that there are actually only two tiger subspecies. You have the "mainland tiger" (Panthera tigris tigris, comprising the Bengal, Siberian, South China, Malayan, Indochinese, and extinct Caspian subpopulations) and the "Sunda tiger" (Panthera tigris sondaica, comprising of the Sumatran and the extinct Javan and Bali subpopulations). Many zoos haven't yet caught up with this new information yet. So "Bengal tiger" refers to only one isolated population of a single subspecies, not a distinct subspecies in its own right.

On top of that, most captive "Bengal" tigers are actually hybridised between Bengals and Siberian tigers, and often Indochinese tigers (in much the same way that captive populations of the Barbary lion subpopulation still exist, but are largely mixed with other populations of the northern lion (Panthera leo leo).

So there's a good chance your Spanish zoos are a little behind with new knowledge (as I said, many zoos tend to be, so it isn't limited to Spain or anything) or that they have hybridised Bengal tigers they are simply applying the Bengal name to (without truly realising it). Supposedly this is a huge problem with captive chimpanzee breeding programmes. When I was at Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland there were discussions around doing intensive DNA analysis to figure out exactly where their chimps came from, because they didn't know which subspecies they belonged to.
That is actually the same thing with Giraffes in my home Australia's zoos. On their websites, zoos do not specify which of the subspecies of giraffe they belong to, so I basically try and guess, my top choices are Angolan Giraffe, Rothschild's Giraffe or Northern Giraffe
 
That is actually the same thing with Giraffes in my home Australia's zoos. On their websites, zoos do not specify which of the subspecies of giraffe they belong to, so I basically try and guess, my top choices are Angolan Giraffe, Rothschild's Giraffe or Northern Giraffe
In NZ it's exclusively Rothschild's giraffes - I imagine it's the same in most Australian zoos, since NZ and Australian zoos have a general "Australasian breeding programme". Just like how we all have Sumatran tigers and (supposedly) Southern lions (P. l. melanochaita).
 
I wouldn't be opposed to a Sumatran Tiger. Granted we do already have two tigers so I don't consider it necessary, but if a third was to be added it would be the one I'd want to see.
 
It is the last of the Sunda Tiger or Island Tiger species, the Javanese and the Balinese went extinct last century, and they are also the most endangered and exhibited tiger in the world today, so their presence would not just opt for inclusion because of their conservation status, but also their appearance in most of the worlds zoos, pretty much every big-time zoo in Australia has Sumatran Tigers, not Bengal or Siberian Tigers apart from Sydney Zoo (Siberian Tiger) and Australia Zoo (Bengal Tiger) which exhibit two tiger species
 
Top Bottom