All aboard the Ark!

The Animals came in two by two....

For a swap on Atcs for All. There came some confusion when early on someone asked if they were allowed to draw birds, to which it was replied that the Host actually intended for us not to draw birds, but that this swap was supposed to be for "animals". Now, this is one of my personal pet peeves - because as a dedicated ornithologist and bird lover, it really, really irks me when people seem to regard "birds"* as being something separate from all other animals. Birds are animals. Fish are animals. Reptiles are animals. Octopus are animals.

Anyway, to cut a short story shorter: Birds are now permitted. And to her credit, the Hostess just ignored my rant and did not get caught up in a typing tussle.

So of course, to thumb my nose at them further (actually, I was intending to do it this way anyhow) I chose to draw a pair from each of the main animal branches - reptile, bird and mammal.

As per all these swaps that require me to draw a male and female of the same species, I tried to choose species that demonstrated sexual dimorophism. That is to say - the male and the female look quite different. In this case we have:
* The Ark and the dove (the ark was a swap requirement)
* A pair of Jackson's Chameleons (male has horns)
* Nyala pair (female is red)
* Himalayan Monal (male is blue)



* Another thing that sometimes puzzles me is why people sometimes have a phobia of all birds in general, due to the fact that they were attacked by a territorial and nasty bird like a magpie when they were a child. For some reason, being attacked by a large black and white bird makes them scared of dumpy, friendly fantails. That's like being attacked by a dog and developing a phobia of cats.

Power and Grace - but at what price?

They would have to be one of the most charasmatic and much admired creatures on the planet. Visitors swarm to zoo just to see them, or to watch them perform. Many people, when asked their favourite animal, will answer with their name. But they do not realise. They do not realise that the animal the admire so much for its grace, its beauty, its pride, is not actually a species at all. Nor is it even a subspecies.

It's not even pureblood.

No, it's a non-viable genetic mutation.

What is this animal of which I speak?

This:

The "Royal White Tiger" as it has been dubbed, branded a uniquely coloured subspecies of tiger to try and perpetuate its popularity and reinforce its breeding. It is not a subspecies, it is a genetic flaw - a genetic flaw that has been continued via inbreeding and thus often results in deformities like the poor cat above suffers. A cleft palate, for a start. Also, often hip displacement. The "Royal Whites" are not even true Bengals (which IS a subspecies of tiger) - most of them have Siberian blood - bred into the line in the past to try and increase their size. White tigers are usually cross-eyed. The gene for the colouration is linked to a number of negative characteristics all of which cause the tiger to be completely non-viable in the wild.

So when I read a newspaper article discussing the Zion Wildlife Park and how the "...royal white tiger was extinct in the wild..." I had to laugh. One of those dry, humourless laugh. Of course it's extinct in the wild - it's a detrimental gene mutation. It can't survive in the wild!

There are probably enough independent strains of white tiger out there that it may be possible to breed them without engaging too heavily in inbreeding, but it seems a lot of time and effort and expense to go to when there are so many other species needing assistance - like the normal coloured tigers for example!

For more information, visit this website: Big Cat Rescue - it may be a bit biastbut it still makes some good points.

This is the last white tiger I will ever draw.

Btw, his name is Kenny and he lived at the Turpentine Creek Refuge in Arkansas. He died in June, 2007.