Or just put a tame lion and tiger in the same enclosure...they might mate. In the wild, it doesn't work that way.

Nope, according to the Keeper of the largest Liger. It happened with no assistance. Maybe they put them in the same cell but they did not assist in the actual mating. No gang rape happened.

Tame animals....

but by putting thme togeth u have human interference. the animals in captivity often differ greatly from ther wild counterparts. im sure these keepers would have no problem playing a game of tackle with these cats but they wouldnt do it ot ones in the wild because they kil lthem and thne eat them. this just goes to show u the diffrence of mentality these cats have fro mcaptivity to wild. human interference is why they are in captivity and why they were put in the same cage.

They got along in the cell, why not in the wild?
Like the Bear.

animal physicology. its very anoying to explain it takes liek 3 courses in it to get even the closest understnaind of it. all i can say is natural alienation i nthe wild and a cross between upbringing and surpressed insticnts. due to non wild living conditions

And as hard it is to imagine, nature is very unpredictable.
Liger in the ZOO, Natural hybridization has just been confirmed.
The possibility is increasing.

There have always been hybridization between subspecies...like the red wolf/coyote. Never between species.


Because they are TAME animals that LACK natural instincts...

The Bears were not tame.
You say it is impossible, I say the possibility exist.
Rigth now ther s no Wild Liger I know that, just like there was no Wild hybrid bear BEFORE.

BUT they were possibly subspecies...Coyotes and wolves mate...

actualy bear hybrids are not unheard of. once again sub species breeding

I wouldn't say that. It still occurs in a lot of places that wild animals are taken into zoos, so they're not always tamer. Plus, even if an animal is born in a zoo, it will not be MUCH much tamer. It's still a wild animal, only born in the confines of an un-natural prison: Dogs are tame, bears are not! Sheep are domesticated, tigers are not!




I highly doubt that dude. Do you have a degree in Zoology, Biology, Physiology, Genetics or Heredity? Have you studied any of the said subjects over the course of 7 years? Not unless there's some sort of really freaked mutation going on, which, let's face it, even in a "simpler" creature like, oooh say Drosophila melanogaster is very, very slim of chance, like millions to one. Since usually a mutation (and when I say mostly, I mean very much highly in the percentage of probability) will result in the viability of the cell being void, ie. death, it's highly, highly unlikely.



Why are people always so willing to try and enforce human states upon other animals!? Different species don't hate each other, they just compete. They don't have time in the wild to deal with such petty notions. As far as any animal is concerned, any other individual is a potential hazzard to it no matter what species it is, whether it comprehends this or not! It's called survival, it's not some sort of petty rivalry "just because they don't like each other"...

RKD

Natural alienation its a way for them to have a natural predjdice against eachother because of there dffrences. in lamence terms they kinda "hate" eachother. not in the sence hitler hated the jew or anythingl iek that its an unbiases dislike for those out side its species. thats why u dont see a wolf and moutain lion sleeping side by side or anything liek that

NATURAL HYBRIDIZATION is what the big news is. You don't really expect many here in this Forum to agree with you instead of what is in the News and the Canandian Biologist, right?

Natural hybridization has been going on in the wild between subspecies for some time now...


Give a kitten to a gorilla in the wild and see what they do...

once again thought u are forgetting that i too know what i'm talking about. ok as it is now because of how polar bears are classififed it is a species hybrid. in actualyity as myself and oaths of the scientific community believe the polar bear should be reclassified as a sub species of brown bear because of physical and genetic similarities of the brown bears. (it lost the grizzly bear molars only 20 thousand years ago thats not long at all) and if it is reclassisifed as it should be then it is not a hybrid of species but of subspaces and that is nothing unheard of.



u forget i don't care what u people think of my posts. all i'm trying to do is educate u people. if u don't want to listen and want to be stubborn then don't read and don't reply because i don't care what those who are stubborn and just sit there and go ur wrong. people need to open there minds. u say that we dont know everything there is to know aobut animals but u forget we dont have everything right classificatiopn wise either. but heres is an idea for u a defination of a species is two animals that can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. now if the bear is fertile then it proves ther the same species. thus its not seprate species liosn and tiger only females are fertile so they arent species. Get it yet cause im getting tired of this

I did not question anyone. I posed the question as to what turn the bear's satus might take if proven to be a sub-species.

It is a beautiful animal, and I am sure the occourence is rare, however, as these two “species” of bears have been separated from each other by 250,000 years, yet true speciation hasn’t occurred it would appear that there is no more real difference between the grizzly and the polar bear then there is between a collie and a husky. I was suggesting we see what answer the experts would arrive at, rather than infer one prematurely.

Impressive tale nontheless, except for the fact that some barbarian he-man needs to spend 50K a year to slaughter such wonders. I wonder how many hungry mouths that would feed a year, or how many medicines it could supply to save lives,...... no matter, you don't get a nice brown and white pelt from having a bleeding heart now do you !! With some luck he will be jailed for killing a Grizzly, which he was not licensed to kill.


PS What the hell happened to the marozi?

He didn't know it was a grizzly....or at least we think.

if polar bears get classified as brown bears there protection would increase they would most likely recivie protectio nthey already have plus any given to the brown bears themselves.

no its half grizzly half polar but 100%. brown bear if u ask me

To me, the polar bear needs more protection than the Grizzly

if reclassified it woudl recive more protection

if reclassified it woudl recive more protection

Of course he didn't know, didn't you see the picture of the Bear ? It is a White Bear.
No one would assume the Bear just dyed his hair or just an Albino.

That's why I don't think he should be fined...

... what, look at it, before going off to do something important in it's life? Like find food?

Surely you're not implying that gorillas are violent animals!? Not in this enlightened day and age!?

RKD

I see your point. I still hope the cretin is fined.

I just think one should be fined for spending $50K a year on wildlife slaughter. I cannot fathom why one would take such a barbaic pastime for pleasure. We should be a more advanced species than this.
Small phallic syndrome no doubt. Must feel more like a man killing a majestic creature through crosshairs at a distance.

But they are capable to be, and will...They have a winde range of emotions...You don't find Gorillas befriending cats or snakes being best buddies with mice in the wild...

The scene from King Kong where Kong is about to start swinging the girl around while standing on a pile of bones from his other 'toys' comes to mind

And Kong was civilised.

lol...what came to my mind was the brutal yet sophisticated monkey hunts chimps go on...

VERY GOOD POINT!!!

Lucky they did not mate and produce a hybrid though.....for many reasons

besudes the fact diffrent species dont breed?

Yep, besides that, it was a little joke. Very little I grant.

Cranky fellow ren't you Settle, I do appreciate the insighful and factual knowledge you bring to his forum. I see your sub-species argument clearly and agree. Seems no more impressive than a German Shepard and an Alsatian producing fertile offspring. Rare considering the animal, but not an amazing event that we understand to be genetically impossible.
Social structure of the animals, not genetic, appears to be the most amazing part of this event. They should avoid each other but went through lengthy courtship.
Why? Necessity? Obviously, but what forced that necessity?

nope not cranky that was jsut me getting this bakc on topic lol. and im gald someone understand the subspecies thing lol

Okay, so I've been following this thread, kind of just sitting back and taking everything in, and I really feel the need to retort, as there are a few things I want to say...

Firstly, robbieb- reading your posts is like a root canal. It pains me. I'm sure you're very intelligent, you make some good points and claim to know what you're talking about but for god's sake USE SPELLCHECK. How can you succeed in your tertiary education when you can't even successfully manage a proper sentence? I mean I myself make typo's, but do you even look at what you write before you post it? I don't mean to be a cow and nitpick, but really...

Frogfish, I find your arrogance really irritating (yet strangely appealing). I respect your opinions, and I agree with alot of what you say on various topics, but to catagorically say there are NO natural hybrids is really asking for trouble. Yes, it is very, very, VERY unlikely, but physically possible, hence, there is a chance, albeit a remote one. It's not right to dismiss other people as being stupid for simply choosing to believe in the existence of a creature that, theoretically, is possible. It's very rude. You may not believe that it could occur, and I don't much see it happening on a regular basis, but you cannot rule it out. It's not just a zoological debate, it calls for other factors, such as probability and statistics.

I don't mean to come across as rude... okay, well maybe just a bit

^ Spacey

It seems it is the species / sub-species argument is what is getting everyone offside.

hey, does anyone remember that film by Peter Jackson, Brain Dead? Hah, I'm getting images of that Sumatran rat-monkey!



yyyeeahh, maybe if the kitten posed a threat dude...

and you wouldn't get a snake befriending a mouce in captivity either... unless there's some really weird happenings. Simple reason? For the most part, rodents are prey of snakes.

Makes you wonder though... We like to think of ourselves, as mammals, as the most advanced of animals, the top of the heap, with our endothermy and homeothermy etc... but at the end of the day, us mammals appear to make up the prey for most reptiles... Does that say anything to you? ?

RKD

Actualy in china i belive it is there is a snake that didnt eat a mouse the keepersp ut into the cage with it. and it now lives in the cage with the snake the snake does not eat it but eats other mice they put in it. also ther is a similar story with a snake and a parakeet. both are recorded and ive seen footage of both the mouse would actualy walk by the snake and it wouldnt do anything the other mouse would walk by and bam it eats it.

Well good for that mouse then!

Possibly a body-temperature related thing... or it didn't likehte taste of the mouse... maybe it could detect a possible disease on the mouse.

RKD

nope its a healthy mouse and thwey cant find anything diffrent about this one and the other ones. same color came from the same breeding stock same size and everything. just woudlnt eat this one mouse. and they cant figure out why.

Spacey, there are some people here that just don't get simple things. I have been here longer than you, and normally I do not get rude and arrogant towards others unless they are deserving of it...There are a few...

I understand your point Frogfish, and agree that some people are idiots and needed to be spoken to, but i think in this instance you should try to think of things from a different point of view.
There's a big difference between telling some schmuck that something is physically impossible, like gigantic spiders or mermaids or the like, because it can be scientifically proven to be a complete fantasy, but in this case i think that there is a slim chance, therefore it could, theoretically happen.
Although unlikely that leopards and lions could ever procreate, it is possible so you can't completely rule it out, and although ligers in the wild are even more unlikely, stranger things have happened... I just don't think it's fair in this case to make someone feel stupid for believing it.

And no offense, but i don't really feel that because you've been in the forum longer than i have it means you have any more right to an opinion.

yea but seriously it i pretty stupid to belive it can happen

No, robbieb, you'd have to be pretty stupid to say that it happens consistently and that leopards and lions are shacking up together all the time. That's just living in fairyland.

You'd also have to be pretty stupid to assume that just because you know alot you know everything and that it never happens at all.

There's a big difference between improbable and impossible...

yes there is and is it possible yes it is possible for it to happen will it ever happen no it wont ever happen in the wild. thus its stupiud to belive it will happen in the wild

stupid is as stupid does....

That's not what I meant. I meant by being here longer, there are some people I know that do not get it...Including some on this thread.

I think you been here too long already.
Those who challenge you and don't agree don't get it? Because you been here the longest?
In the animal kingdom it is called - Territorialism

Sorry mate, i misunderstood you there
It's all good.

But my point still stands....