At the very least don't zoos have signage at least saying what is exhibited? That's still educational. I will agree not like an ecosystem exhibit but it's something.
"Wrong" subspecies in geographically themed exhibits.
- Thread starter elefante
- Start date
SealPup
Well-Known Member
Sure but these things come in degrees, si? It doesn't follow everything has the same standard, even within one collection.
That's where this thread comes in: make do and mend. Either stand-in species or placing odds and ends somewhere - like wallabies into Europe. There's nothing wrong with it as such, it just makes more and more nonsense, the more they break their own rules.
My gripe is not with such themed exhibits as regards something like an African or an Indian plains. It comes when the themes do not reflect biogeography, as I explained. Its never done properly, despite its supposed educational nature. Zoo education is supposed to be about biology but it most often follows the six continents, instead of the realms? Why? Laziness or a lack of knowledge base among zoo designers, or maybe they just follow trends?
I like how you wrote si in the response. It is true that most geographic collections do follow a continent theme. I would love to see more zoos specialize with a country or habitat within a country. You could build a great exhibit with some ABC species to anchor it. And in my mind use stand in subspecies (but not alien species) and maybe even species that are locally extinct. If only I could design a zoo...Sure but these things come in degrees, si? It doesn't follow everything has the same standard, even within one collection.
That's where this thread comes in: make do and mend. Either stand-in species or placing odds and ends somewhere - like wallabies into Europe. There's nothing wrong with it as such, it just makes more and more nonsense, the more they break their own rules.
My gripe is not with such themed exhibits as regards something like an African or an Indian plains. It comes when the themes do not reflect biogeography, as I explained. Its never done properly, despite its supposed educational nature. Zoo education is supposed to be about biology but it most often follows the six continents, instead of the realms? Why? Laziness or a lack of knowledge base among zoo designers, or maybe they just follow trends?
SealPup
Well-Known Member
I would be impressed if someone did it properly, by animal geography. In Eurasia things are north-south not west-east, furthermore Palaerctic faunas encompass the entire Arctic. Musk ox are not North American. North African animals like Barbary sheep are not African, they are Palaearctic. And so on.
But honestly, barbary sheep do occur in Africa, so any zoo that displays them in their African section isn't wrong in any way. Very few zoos have a "Palearctic" themed area. Many have for example an Asian area, and they don't do anything wrong if they include both Asian Palearctic and Indomalayan species, because they are from Asia. Zoos generally follow either "classic" geography (Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) or display a more specific area or ecosystem. It's not fair to blame zoos for displaying incorrect zoogeography, if zoogeography is not what they are trying to show.
SealPup
Well-Known Member
This is the problem. What are they trying to show? The whole point is that, from a zoological point of view, there is no such thing as Asia or Europe; and Africa is only real if you trim the Barbary Coast and Madagascar. The geographically themed zoo is ostensibly more educational in some way than other layouts, and this is why it was actually promoted. Specifically, if zoos are educational, they must be there to teach zoology, not that there are five continents.
Barbary sheep are not just located north of the Sahara, they are related to other Palaearctic caprines. Presenting them as African misrepresents what genuine (Afrotropical) African fauna is like. What is being taught then, when they are misplaced as African in themes, except falsehood?
Just another way the supposed higher purposes of zoos, are actually half-assed and insincere. Zoogeography is not hard, not as regards things like ungulates. The lack of interest in accuracy shows the designers and directors cannot be bothered IMO. If they are't really bothered they should stop pretending it is educational. Which it has been when the notion was popularised from the 70s on, as somehow better than earlier formats.
(This is about zoo layouts, not themed exhibits. For background people might not get, although geographical themes existed beforehand, they have become a homogenising trend in recent decades. And this was linked to trends in attitudes towards the role of zoos.)
Last edited:
When Harold MacMillan was Prime Minister of the UK, he was asked what caused him the biggest problems. His famous reply was 'Events, dear boy, events!'
I am sure that people are interested in accuracy when they plan zoogeographical exhibits - but unforeseen events always happen sooner or later. An outbreak of disease or a build-up of parasites may require stock to be moved around or the species in a mixed exhibit may need to be separated or an opportunity to acquire a new species may arise - and the most precise plans have to be disrupted. That's the weakness of zoogeographical exhibits.
There is no perfect way to organise a zoo. On the whole I would prefer to see a few species with similar ecology and morphology displayed together - perhaps hummingbirds and sunbirds or some combination of dik-dik, duiker, chevrotain and pudu for example. The old-fashioned Reptile House has had its day, but might a Tortoise and Turtle House showing 6 or 8 species in a range of habitats from desert to river be an interesting idea?
SealPup
Well-Known Member
I agree all dogma stifles innovation, but to think about the way reptile houses might house nonreptiles and exclude birds; in practice, this was about husbandry needs, and convenience for caregivers. The problem was that they were called reptile houses, and not Vivaria or Terraria in line with the idea of zoo Aquaria. When practicality came first, zoo people were ashamed of it and masked it by pretending a taxonomic theme. Zoo design nowadays often favours the less practical to follow some abstract ideal ie. purposefully scattering the bird collection.
A chelonian house would be a good idea but I worry humidity from freshwater or marine exhibits would harm desert species. They're a neglected group with species of conservation and zoological interest, as well as public interest: giant tortoises and sea turtles. But another problem is the size of building needed in temperate climates like the UK. That sort of themed area is prbly best in a climate like Bangkok, where it is simple to fence large herps in appropriately big pens outdoors. Most or all the reptile exhibits can then be outdoors with natural UV lighting.
Indoor-only exhibits are IMO better when ecologically rather than taxonomically or geographically managed, so as to maintain a consistent ambience throughout the building. This seems easier than regulating each terrarium.
Last edited:
SealPup, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at with some of your posts. You keep saying five continents. Which two are omitted? In the USA at least, the only area I've never seen represented is Europe.
In regards to the Barbary sheep, those are native to Africa, where else would they go? And Madagascar is part of Africa isn't it?
In regards to musk oxen and other widespread species like that, keeping them in an area dedicated to wildlife from that continent seems appropriate.
I also think the thread may be getting a tad off topic.
In regards to the Barbary sheep, those are native to Africa, where else would they go? And Madagascar is part of Africa isn't it?
In regards to musk oxen and other widespread species like that, keeping them in an area dedicated to wildlife from that continent seems appropriate.
I also think the thread may be getting a tad off topic.
SealPup
Well-Known Member
Most traditionally there are six traditional continents as Antarctica is traditionally omitted owing to her being uninhabited by man, and for the record her fauna and flora are neatly South American. My habit of saying five continents is a reference to Eurasia as a continuous land mass, I'm surprised abandoning Europe is new to you. Africa is connected to Eurasia only by Sinai, and the Americas by the Panamanian isthmus, but in contrast the frontier between Europe and Asia is vast. This is why there is no Europe or Asia in biogeography, owing to the lack of a boundary. Geologically Europe is no more distinct than subcontinental India, and consistency downplays her status so they match.
The Barbary sheep is not African in a zoological sense because where they live is more properly Palaearctic. The Sahara forming a barrier to migration, the spread of Barbary sheep matches the Mediterranean world and the Green Sahara periods. The nearest relatives of the Barbary sheep are almost all north of the Sahara - they are part of the Palaearctic fauna. Southwards - Afrotropical - caprines are rare, and they are limited to the nearby Horn at the southernmost.
Despite her small size, Madagascar's endemism is statistically similar to South America's. (See the links I posted above.) Regarding Madagascan endemics as African should be compared to someone describing South American endemics as North American.
Geologically there is a massive distinction between subcontinental India and the rest of Eurasia
amateur mistake there!
SealPup
Well-Known Member
Europe too has her own plate demarked by a mountain range, which is frequently cited as a basis for upholding Europe's continental status, whilst ignoring that an equal and stronger case can be made on behalf of India, upholding the same arguments.Geologically there is a massive distinction between subcontinental India and the rest of Eurasia
Nope; the mountain range you refer to marks a *former* plate boundary which has long since ceased activity, whilst the boundary between the Eurasian plate and Indian plate is active and still geologically distinct. As such, dismissing India and Europe as equally lacking in distinctiveness is wrong.
SealPup
Well-Known Member
Which scarcely makes Europe a sixth continent as elefante assumed everyone to accept.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
But surely this strengthens the claim that Europe is less separate a continent than India, as it was more recently unconnected.
Well, I'm not contesting that; I'm contesting the implication that Europe and India are comparably indistinct geologically.
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
Toronto Zoo is retrofitting its Ringtail Lemur exhibit to accommodate Aldabra Tortoises. Giant tortoises were once found on Madagascar so not too off?
Are they going for that theme? Or an island theme? Either way, that doesn't seem too out of place to me.
I think the concept of 'theme' is relative in zoos that wrong subspecies are completely OK if they fill some broader role.
These exhibits have, usually, wrong vegetation, wrong geology, animals from different part of a continent e.g. Africa brought together. So wrong subspecies does not matter.
These exhibits have, usually, wrong vegetation, wrong geology, animals from different part of a continent e.g. Africa brought together. So wrong subspecies does not matter.