A growing giraffe population in one landscape cannot replace a disappearing lineage somewhere else. That is what makes the four-species question more than a change of labels. Beneath the familiar long neck and spotted coat are distinct evolutionary histories—and an Africa-wide total can conceal how differently those histories are unfolding.
What are the four giraffe species?
They are the northern, reticulated, Masai and southern giraffe. The IUCN SSC Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group’s decision was announced on 21 August 2025, following an assessment of genetic, anatomical and geographic evidence.
The IUCN announcement establishes the classification change. It does not mean that four animals suddenly appeared, or that every older observation has become useless. It changes how researchers organise and interpret the diversity that was already there.
| Species and scientific name | Named subspecies in the 2025 framework | Estimated population, June 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Northern — Giraffa camelopardalis | West African, Kordofan, Nubian | 7,037 |
| Reticulated — Giraffa reticulata | No named subspecies | 20,901 |
| Masai — Giraffa tippelskirchi | Masai, Luangwa / Thornicroft’s | 43,926 |
| Southern — Giraffa giraffa | South African, Angolan | 68,837 |
Classification follows the IUCN taxonomic assessment, executive summary. Population figures come from State of Giraffe 2025, version 2, compiled by the Giraffe Conservation Foundation.
These June estimates sum to 140,701. They combine information from different surveys and sources; they are not a simultaneous census or a live counter. Kenya's later 2025 census reports 31,201 reticulated giraffes nationally, exceeding the older species-wide figure in this table. Our population guide links that source, explains why the estimates cannot simply be combined and preserves the original June data download.
Meet the four species
The names below are a starting point for reading, not four interchangeable labels for a generic animal. Geography, population history and the level of classification all matter.
Northern giraffe: three subspecies within one species
Northern giraffe includes the West African, Kordofan and Nubian subspecies. Its total is the smallest in the comparison above. “Smallest population” is a numerical comparison, however, not by itself an official extinction-risk category.
There is important variation even within a subspecies. A study published on 5 September 2026 added genomic sequences from 30 Nubian giraffes sampled in South Sudan’s Boma and Badingilo national parks. Combined with earlier data, the analysis identified regional genetic structure within Nubian giraffe.
The South Sudan genomic study illustrates why a species-level label is not the end of the investigation. Its sampled genomes are not a new census, and regional genetic groups are not automatically new subspecies. Read our short explanation of the DNA findings, or continue with the northern giraffe profile for the broader conservation context.
Reticulated giraffe: a species, not a subdivision of northern giraffe
Reticulated giraffe has no named subspecies in the adopted framework. That does not make every reticulated population genetically identical or equally secure.
Its relationship with northern giraffe is particularly instructive. Research in Kenya has found evidence of historical ancestry exchange while still supporting the distinction between the lineages. The important question is not whether their histories ever touched, but whether they remain distinguishable evolutionary lineages.
The hybridisation section below explains that study. Our reticulated giraffe profile follows the species rather than using “reticulated” merely as a description of an attractive coat.
Masai giraffe: a name used at two levels
Giraffa tippelskirchi is the Masai species. Within it, G. t. tippelskirchi is the Masai subspecies, while G. t. thornicrofti is the Luangwa, or Thornicroft’s, subspecies.
This repeated name can cause confusion. A reference to Masai giraffe may concern the whole species or the narrower subspecies. In technical writing, sensu stricto, often shortened to s. str., means “in the strict sense” and helps distinguish the narrower usage.
When comparing population figures, check which level the author means before combining numbers. The Masai giraffe profile provides a route into that distinction; height alone is not an adequate way to identify the species.
Southern giraffe: the largest total is not every population’s story
Southern giraffe contains the Angolan and South African subspecies. It has the largest estimated total in the table, but that total should not be read as a verdict on each local population.
Imagine two populations placed in one reporting category: one could increase while the other decreases. Their combined number might still rise. This arithmetic example does not diagnose any particular giraffe population; it shows why the scale of a claim matters.
The southern giraffe profile looks more closely at this species. A large species total cannot establish that every habitat is secure or that one management approach caused the entire change.
Why did scientists move from one species to four?
For many readers, the familiar starting point is one giraffe species divided into nine subspecies. But historical classification was debated; it was not one unanimous, unchanged view until a single DNA experiment overturned it.
In 2016, Fennessy and colleagues analysed genetic information from 190 giraffes, including maternally and biparentally inherited markers. Their results supported four distinct groups under a genetic-isolation criterion. The original multi-locus study also supported including the former Rothschild’s giraffe within Nubian giraffe.
More of the genome, not just more confident wording
Coimbra and colleagues’ 2021 whole-genome analysis examined 50 giraffes representing all traditionally recognised subspecies. It supported four separately evolving lineages and a framework of four species and seven subspecies.
The researchers reported limited gene flow and different demographic histories. A whole genome supplies a broader evidence base than a small selection of genetic markers, but it does not remove the need to consider sampling and analytical assumptions.
For a deeper account of the methods, see our taxonomy and genetics guide. The useful takeaway is the accumulation of evidence across studies, not an analogy claiming giraffes are “exactly as different” as some other pair of mammals.
Anatomy adds an independent comparison
Kargopoulos and colleagues assembled a dataset of 515 giraffe skulls for a 2024 three-dimensional shape study. The dataset included museum, wild and taxidermy specimens. Statistical analyses found cranial-shape differences among the four species, particularly involving the ossicones.
The work also identified sex and developmental differences. These are reasons to compare specimens systematically rather than assume any two differently shaped heads must belong to different species.
This is evidence from measured anatomy, not a claim that a tourist can reliably reproduce a statistical classification from one distant photograph.
Can different giraffe species interbreed?
The evidence does not support an absolute “never.” A 2023 genomic study analysed 128 wild giraffe genomes representing Nubian, reticulated and Masai giraffes in the Kenyan context, including 113 newly sequenced genomes.
Researchers found varying Nubian ancestry in 13 reticulated individuals from the Laikipia Plateau, most likely reflecting historical gene flow. Estimates of contemporary gene flow were not statistically significant. The open-access hybridisation paper concluded that the lineages had nevertheless maintained their overall genomic integrity.
“Historical gene flow” means ancestry crossed a lineage boundary in the past. It is not equivalent to observing a mixed-species mating today. Conversely, a study failing to detect significant contemporary exchange is not proof that no such event can ever occur.
This is why classification cannot be reduced to a one-question quiz about whether two animals could produce offspring. The genetic-isolation evidence area connects readers with research on distinctness, connectivity and small-population genetics.
Can you identify a giraffe species from its spots?
Coat patterns can be useful descriptive clues, but a confident identification requires more context. The IUCN assessment did not use coat-pattern characteristics in its species evaluation, noting limited systematic evidence and variation within populations and with age.
That is a substantial difference from an internet key promising that a particular shade, outline or “white sock” always identifies a species. Photographs also differ in lighting, angle and resolution.
For your own notes, record the location, date, the source of the identification and whether the animal’s origin is known. “Identified by the reserve’s records” and “looks similar to a photograph online” are not equally strong evidence.
Our coat-pattern science guide explores a related but separate question: what patterns can tell researchers about individuals and biology.
Does recognising four species change their extinction status?
A taxonomic decision asks which biological units are being recognised. A Red List assessment asks how threatened a specified unit is, using its own evidence, criteria and publication process. A population estimate asks a third question: approximately how many animals are represented.
The 2025 IUCN announcement said the revised taxonomy would guide upcoming Red List assessments. It should not be rewritten as a publication of four new risk categories.
For category labels and assessment dates, use our giraffe extinction-status guide. In particular, an older assessment of a subspecies and a later proposed assessment of a species are not necessarily evaluating the same unit.
A useful reading sequence is:
- Identify the scientific name and the level: species, subspecies or local population.
- Find the assessment or dataset date.
- Check whether the label is published, proposed or expected.
- Read the scope before comparing it with another number or category.
This sequence prevents a common error: joining a recent taxonomic headline to an older risk label and presenting the combination as a new official decision.
What to remember
The four-species framework helps readers see diversity that a single “giraffe” label can hide. It does not make local population history irrelevant, settle every future research question, or prove that a particular conservation action succeeded.
When sharing a fact, keep its level and date attached. A species name tells you identity; a population estimate describes abundance within a stated scope; an assessment evaluates risk. Together they are more informative than any one headline.
Frequently asked questions
How many giraffe species are recognised in the 2025 IUCN specialist-group framework? Four: northern, reticulated, Masai and southern.
What happened to Rothschild’s giraffe? In this framework, the former Rothschild’s taxon is included within Nubian giraffe. Older books and records can still use the earlier name; the animals did not disappear when classification changed.
Is Thornicroft’s giraffe a separate species? No. Luangwa, or Thornicroft’s, giraffe is a subspecies within Masai giraffe in the adopted framework.
Does “no subspecies” mean reticulated giraffes have no genetic variation? No. It describes the classification used, not the absence of differences among individuals or populations.
Sources
The linked evidence includes the IUCN announcement and assessment; State of Giraffe 2025 version 2; the 2016 and 2021 genetics papers; the 2023 hybridisation study; the 2024 skull analysis; and the September 2026 South Sudan paper.
These sources address different questions. We have not pooled their sample sizes or treated a taxonomic recommendation as a Red List category.
