Nikon Nikkor Lens Battle: 55-200mm vs 18-200mm vs 55-300mm vs 70-300mm?

I was wondering which of the 4 lens is worth getting. I'm an amateur taking up photography just as a hobby and I go hiking and gotten photos of beautiful animals. I just love the telephoto lenses and can't not carry one with me where ever I go.

I currently have the 70-300mm lens but am in a little debt that must be taken care of so I must part with it. I know the 70-300mm is one of the better of the lower end telephoto lenses and my options for other cheaper telephoto lenses are the 55-200, 18-200mm, 55-300 lenses, but I don't know which one is worth getting. Although I'm an amateur I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so taking up photography is about one of my favourite hobbies.

I was wondering if its worth downgrading lenses, if its not worth downgrading I'm gonna hold onto this lens. Also if it means anything I use a Nikon D3100 DSLR.

Thanks!

Added (1). I shoot nature shots with it sometimes, especially wildlife or any sort of animal that would be easily spooked.

Which you buy has more to do with the way you use your camera.

If you are looking for a single lens solution, the 18-200 mm has been a favorite of a lot of people, on lens which takes the place of the two 18-55 and 55-200 mm entry level lenses. This reduces the opportunity of dust eventually getting to the cameras sensor due to constant lens changing.

The new 18-300 mm lens may be the next step when it comes to a single lens solution.

If you are keeping your 18-55 mm lens, the 70-300 mm lens would be a good choice if you shoot a lot of action, sports or air shows.

The best lens for you, may not be the best lens for me.

If you currently have the good 70-300mm AF-S VR, then it is probably best to hold onto it if you can. It should be better quality in its range than any of the others. It does have a disadvantage of being heavier. The 18-200mm Nikkor has pretty good quality for its range (but still some compromises) but it's expensive and makes your money problem worse. The non-Nikon 18-200mm will probably cost about as much as you could hope to get for your 70-300mm, and the quality will be a bigger dip. I have a 55-300mm, which is not bad, and the reduced weight and bulk is nice considering that I use 300mm rarely. Of course a new 55-300mm probably costs about as much a you could sell your 70-300mm AF-S for used. The 70-300mm is reputed to have better edge sharpness at 300mm, and better focusing in dim light or subjects with softer edges.
The 55-200mm has gotten very favorable reviews, it is lighter, and swapping those could give you a little better money situation. A sample that I tried was disappointing at 200mm, and I returned it. I don't know if that is common. The reviews indicate that it should not be. I did find it sharper shooting across a room than shooting across a parking lot, and that could explain the high marks when photographing test charts. Compared side by side with a 18-200mm Nikkor (the 18-200mm was noticeably better) shooting across the lot at 200mm, it was not the fault of the camera or tripod.