West African lion
- Thread starter Mikmuscle
- Start date
I would pick southern one or central/northeast one
All things considered, relabeling it Southern African Lion (Panthera leo melanochaita) would make the most sense. Of the various former subspecies, the in-game model more closely resembles the southern ones, not the north...
Based on this picture, the Southern lions all look fairly similar to one-another, while the Northern lions are all fairly distinct...
Based on this picture, the Southern lions all look fairly similar to one-another, while the Northern lions are all fairly distinct...
Last edited:
I'll be honest, from an ecological perspective, I don’t see the purpose of labelling animals by subspecies when most other species are labeled at the species level and there aren’t multiple subspecies in-game to justify the distinction. If the game had multiple regional variations of lions, then specifying subspecies would make sense, like with the grizzly bear and Himalayan brown bear (both Ursus arctos). With only one type of lion, just calling it 'lion (Panthera leo)' would make more sense (or at least 'Southern lion (P. l. melanochaita)', since those are the individuals most commonly represented in zoos).
Plus, many ecologists (myself included) don’t place much emphasis on subspecies classifications, since they so frequently change with new genetic research and the criteria for even designating something as a subspecies are extremely inconsistent. In conservation, we tend to focus more on distinct populations and their genetic diversity rather than subspecies labels. That said, I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this.
Plus, many ecologists (myself included) don’t place much emphasis on subspecies classifications, since they so frequently change with new genetic research and the criteria for even designating something as a subspecies are extremely inconsistent. In conservation, we tend to focus more on distinct populations and their genetic diversity rather than subspecies labels. That said, I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this.
Fully agreed. Doting on certain subspecies just restricts options and makes in-game animals pickier than they should be. I'd be perfectly happy with brown bears, tigers, leopards, and grey wolves getting merged together in a sequel. I don't see a point in certain subspecies getting their own spots. And frankly, I think it's not worth the bother conservation-wise because mixing subspecies just helps add genetic diversity across the species.
The only exception I'd make are for domesticated animals like our current American standard donkey and Tamworth pig. That's a pretty fixed criterion so it's less arbitrary than picking between wild subspecies.
Merging subspecies makes no sense in a game that's supposed to be about conservation. A subspecies still has a lot of small but important differences. For example, the Amur leopard is completely different from the African leopard, and each has adapted to its specific environment. The same goes for tigers: the Siberian tiger is built for cold, snowy climates, while the Bengal tiger thrives in warmer, forested areas. Conservation is about protecting these unique traits, not mixing subspecies and reducing their chances of surviving in their specific environments. So its a pretty bad idea for a game but it would be a disaster for many species IRL
Agree for all your reasons! Also, morphological differences exist too. A tiger model based on the mainland subspecies isn't going to fool me into thinking it's a Sumatran.
I think it'd be cool to have a the "African Lion" (Panthera leo) in a sequel even though they dont really exsist in a taxonomic sense. Most lions in human care are mixes of both subspecies from African populations. And then in a DLC or something have the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo leo) for all you across the pond.
The ecologist I quoted explains why subspecies specifics are irrelevant. You can debate the matter with them if you wish
Last edited:
Certainly and I agree! How there certainly are distinct populations with conservation concerns that happen to fall into the subspecies label. I don't think tiger conservationists are fond of mixing the subspecies/populations together, especially the sumatran one.
To be clear, I'm definitely not interested in every species getting a futher subspecies distinction. I'm more interested in the distinctions made in the breeding programs governed by the AZA, EAZA, ZAA, etc. I'm mean this is really just a subjective matter. As someone really interested in real world breeding programs, it makes me happy when sometimes PZ adds species that represent them (i.e (southern) white rhino).
So yeah, I'm rooting for eastern mountain bongos and a more generic lion in a sequel! But y'all do you!
The ecologist I initially quoted literally says this:
Ergo, they don't actually care about what subspecies a tiger is as long as its a tiger. Same goes for brown bears, leopards, grey wolves, and leopards.
Per a keeper at the Beardlesy Zoo, within the Amur leopard breeding program in the EAZA and AZA, it's advised to not breed leopards that carry the gene for melanism. This is because it's believed that North Chinese leopard genetics have gotten in the gene pool, since melanism is not observed in pure Amur leopards. Because we have the potential for a heathly a "Amur-only" population, it's not nesscary to bring in genetics from other subspecies.
Whatever distinction you want to use species, subspecies, locality, or population, it won't change the fact that some populations for varying factors aren't mixed by conservationists/breeding programs. I can't imagine that we're going to start mixing genetically distinct populations, that have been separated for thousands of years for the heck of it when there populations are viable. Northern white rhinos? well that might be different...
That seems like a very pedantic reason to instate subspecies purity. It's entirely likely that melanistic leopards lived in Northern Asia before their population given how many other populations exhibit melanism. How recently was this statement made? It's entirely possible that ideologies have changed between now and then. Furthermore, policies can absolutely vary between zoos, conservation agencies, and environmental agencies. Neither the EAZA and AZA are unanimous bodies in wildlife conservation.
All that said, I'd be very interested in hearing how CrimsonCheetah would respond to this keeper's statement.
Believe it or not, "thousands of years" isn't actually that much time. Our current geological epoch's existed for 12,000 years and leopard populations were far more interconnected. No reason why there'd be genetic barricades that prevent gene flow between populations given how adaptable and flexible leopards are towards their surroundings.