Are White Tigers really a man-made animal?

Question

I went to this website that said White Tigers are a man-made animal and that they are suffering because of it. This is the website-http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/692566

I didnt see any other website that said this. Is it true that White Tigers are man-made?

Answer 1

No. They are albinos ( a genetic mutation)

Answer 2

White Tiger (Panthera tigris) is a tiger with a genetic condition that nearly eliminates pigment in the normally orange fur although they still have dark stripes. This occurs when a tiger inherits two copies of the recessive gene for the paler coloration: pink nose, grey-mottled skin, ice-blue eyes, and white to cream-coloured fur with black, grey, or chocolate-coloured stripes. (Another genetic condition also makes the stripes of the tiger very pale; white tigers of this type are called snow-white.)

White tigers do not constitute a separate subspecies of their own and can breed with orange ones, although all of the resulting offspring will be heterozygous for the recessive white gene, and their fur will be orange. The only exception would be if the orange parent was itself already a heterozygous tiger, which would give each cub a 50% chance of being either double-recessive white or heterozygous orange.

Compared to orange tigers without the white gene, white tigers tend to be larger both at birth and at full adult size.[1] This may have given them an advantage in the wild despite their unusual coloration. Heterozygous orange tigers also tend to be larger than other orange tigers. Kailash Sankhala, the director of the New Delhi Zoo in the 1960s, suggested that "one of the functions of the white gene may have been to keep a size gene in the population, in case it's ever needed."

Dark-striped white individuals are well-documented in the Bengal Tiger subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris or P. t. bengalensis), may also have occurred in captive Siberian Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), and may have been reported historically in several other subspecies. White pelage is most closely associated with the Bengal, or Indian subspecies. Currently, several hundred white tigers are in captivity worldwide with about 100 of them in India, and their numbers are on the increase. The modern population includes both pure Bengals and hybrid Bengal–Siberians, but it is unclear whether the recessive gene for white came only from Bengals, or from any of the Siberian ancestors as well.

The unusual coloration of white tigers has made them popular in zoos and entertainment that showcases exotic animals. The magicians Siegfried & Roy are famous for having bred and trained white tigers for their performances, referring to them as "royal white tigers" perhaps from the white tiger's association with the Maharaja of Rewa.

It is a myth that white tigers did not thrive in the wild, where small groups had bred white for generations. India once planned to reintroduce them to the wild.[2] A.A. Dunbar Brander wrote in "Wild Animals In Central India" (1923): "White tigers occasionally occur. There is a regular breed of these animals in the neighborhood of Amarkantak at the junction of the Rewa state and the Mandla and Bilaspur districts. When I was last in Mandla in 1919, a white tigress and two three parts grown white cubs existed. In 1915 a male was trapped by the Rewa state and kept in confinement. An excellent description of this animal by Mr. Scott of the Indian police, has been published in Vol. XXVII, No. 47, of the Bombay Natural History Society's journal."[3]

However, most white tigers are now bred in captivity, often by inbreeding parents and cubs to ensure the presence of the recessive gene. Such inbreeding often also leads to birth defects.[

Answer 3

Although the rare genetic trait that causes hypomelanism in tigers does occur in the wild, most of the white tigers that are shown in zoos and in performing cat acts are the result of captive inbreeding - breeding white tiger to white tiger to increase the chances that this recessive character will occur.

It is not good for the tigers themselves, who are more susceptible to a wide variety of other disorders due to this inbreeding, nor is it good for the tiger population as a whole, which is already suffering from a lack of biodiversity in the population due to habitat loss and poaching.

It's not a good practice, and most zoos condemn the artificial selection of this trait.

Answer 4

No Jesus Christ made tigers, dont listen to those people who think they know everything.

Answer 5

Nope

Answer 6

Yes and no.  The white tigers themselves are the result of a mutation (similar in some ways to that which creates a Siamese cat). It's basically a partial albino.  In the wild, white tigers are extremely rare.  The same way that white robins or white garter snakes or white alligators are.  White tigers are not a full albino, but they are, like albino, a simple recessive mutation.  That means that both parents have to carry the gene for it to express itself in the youngster.

In the wild, if a white tiger mated with a normal tiger, the chances are that tiger would be unrelated to it and not carrying the mutation.  That means all the babies would be normal colored.

People, however, like the look of the white tiger.  They captured the original wild one and crossed it to a normal tiger.  Then they simply bred the white one back to its youngster and reared more white tigers.  If you breed a white tiger to a white tiger you get white tigers.

White tigers eyes are sort of a bluish color - some claim they have slightly poorer vision than normal colored tigers.  As for the crossed eyes, it has nothing to do with inbreeding - it seems to be a function of the mutation itself -- it was actually common to see crosseyes in Siamese cats years ago.

BTW - crossing two subspecies of tiger, or any other animal, does not create an actual hybrid.  It may not be one or the other subspecies, but it's not another species either.

On one point, I actually agree with the website you cited.  White tigers are more a vanity thing for folks.  On the other hand, it gives people a chance to see a rare animal that does exist in nature - the same way that there are albino elk, etc.  

The one thing I would argue full against is ever releasing a subspecies cross back into the wild, unless the species itself was extinct in the wild, in which case, I'd go along with the release idea and let nature begin its selection process in whatever way it wants.