Zoo/Aquarium Hybrids

SharkFinatic

SharkFinatic

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I haven't seen many people discussing this, so I decided I would.
What do you think of the zoos with aquariums on their grounds (e.g. Henry Doorly Zoo, Toledo Zoo, etc.), and would you like to see more zoos add aquariums?
 
I like to see zoos with aquariums. It really just adds to the biodiversity the zoo represents.

Here are the zoos I have been to that also have aquariums:

Brookfield Zoo - The Living Coast and Seven Seas
Minnesota Zoo - Discovery Bay
 
As discussed previously various times in ZooChat, it's a trend that North American zoos usually don't have aquariums and the aquariums are usually separated facilities in the same cities, but in European zoos the trend is that every major zoo have an aquarium part too. My opinion is that aquariums ARE zoos and then all grades "between" also are zoos. Personally, I thing that a zoo without aquarium tend to be a bad zoo (with notable exceptions like San Diego) just because the number of species is much lower.
 
Houston zoo has the Kipp Aquarium and Point Defiance zoo has several I think (I've never been). I personally wish some of the zoos in my area had aquariums in them
 
Hipporex said:
Houston zoo has the Kipp Aquarium and Point Defiance zoo has several I think (I've never been). I personally wish some of the zoos in my area had aquariums in them
Click to expand...

Yes, Point Defiance has a couple different ones, which I thought were fairly good.

Surprised the Dallas World Aquarium hasn't been mentioned yet, considering they're a unique hybrid of both zoo and aquarium.
 
Kakapo said:
As discussed previously various times in ZooChat, it's a trend that North American zoos usually don't have aquariums and the aquariums are usually separated facilities in the same cities, but in European zoos the trend is that every major zoo have an aquarium part too. My opinion is that aquariums ARE zoos and then all grades "between" also are zoos. Personally, I thing that a zoo without aquarium tend to be a bad zoo (with notable exceptions like San Diego) just because the number of species is much lower.
Click to expand...

While it is unfortunate that this leads to most US zoos not having aquariums, wouldn't a separate aquarium facility lead to a greater number of species viewable within a city? Take Los Angeles for example, which has the famous Los Angeles Zoo as well as the Aquarium of the Pacific. In January 2018, I recorded having seen 159 species of fish at the aquarium (with there being several I never identified and surely more I missed completely) but only 4 (plus a few rainbowfish species I think) at the zoo, with zero overlap. When looking at other groups, though, we have 71 mammals and 52 birds at LA vs 3 and 17 at AotP, with only sea lion and Harbor Seal overlapping. The result is 287 mammal, bird, and fish species being represented in the city of LA, whereas your average zoo-aquarium would likely have much fewer of one or more of those groups (most likely fish) as a result of the increased biodiversity.

Additionally, the presence of an aquarium will not automatically mean the number of species is drastically increased. Using two of my favorite zoos as an example, Chester Zoo has an aquarium but it only holds 42 species in it (though yes there are a number of other species held/recently held in Monsoon Forest). Meanwhile the Bronx Zoo keeps roughly 36 (will be more, it's been a while since I've attempted to ID several of the unsigned fish in CGF) fish species despite the lack of an aquarium building. Yes there are fewer species at Bronx overall than are kept in Chester's aquarium, but the difference is not "much lower".

Also I personally think that the claim that the lack of an aquarium usually makes a zoo bad is utterly ridiculous.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
While it is unfortunate that this leads to most US zoos not having aquariums, wouldn't a separate aquarium facility lead to a greater number of species viewable within a city? Take Los Angeles for example, which has the famous Los Angeles Zoo as well as the Aquarium of the Pacific. In January 2018, I recorded having seen 159 species of fish at the aquarium (with there being several I never identified and surely more I missed completely) but only 4 (plus a few rainbowfish species I think) at the zoo, with zero overlap. When looking at other groups, though, we have 71 mammals and 52 birds at LA vs 3 and 17 at AotP, with only sea lion and Harbor Seal overlapping. The result is 287 mammal, bird, and fish species being represented in the city of LA, whereas your average zoo-aquarium would likely have much fewer of one or more of those groups (most likely fish) as a result of the increased biodiversity.

Additionally, the presence of an aquarium will not automatically mean the number of species is drastically increased. Using two of my favorite zoos as an example, Chester Zoo has an aquarium but it only holds 42 species in it (though yes there are a number of other species held/recently held in Monsoon Forest). Meanwhile the Bronx Zoo keeps roughly 36 (will be more, it's been a while since I've attempted to ID several of the unsigned fish in CGF) fish species despite the lack of an aquarium building. Yes there are fewer species at Bronx overall than are kept in Chester's aquarium, but the difference is not "much lower".

Also I personally think that the claim that the lack of an aquarium usually makes a zoo bad is utterly ridiculous.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I think that you should re-read my comment.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
While it is unfortunate that this leads to most US zoos not having aquariums, wouldn't a separate aquarium facility lead to a greater number of species viewable within a city? Take Los Angeles for example, which has the famous Los Angeles Zoo as well as the Aquarium of the Pacific. In January 2018, I recorded having seen 159 species of fish at the aquarium (with there being several I never identified and surely more I missed completely) but only 4 (plus a few rainbowfish species I think) at the zoo, with zero overlap. When looking at other groups, though, we have 71 mammals and 52 birds at LA vs 3 and 17 at AotP, with only sea lion and Harbor Seal overlapping. The result is 287 mammal, bird, and fish species being represented in the city of LA, whereas your average zoo-aquarium would likely have much fewer of one or more of those groups (most likely fish) as a result of the increased biodiversity.

Additionally, the presence of an aquarium will not automatically mean the number of species is drastically increased. Using two of my favorite zoos as an example, Chester Zoo has an aquarium but it only holds 42 species in it (though yes there are a number of other species held/recently held in Monsoon Forest). Meanwhile the Bronx Zoo keeps roughly 36 (will be more, it's been a while since I've attempted to ID several of the unsigned fish in CGF) fish species despite the lack of an aquarium building. Yes there are fewer species at Bronx overall than are kept in Chester's aquarium, but the difference is not "much lower".

Also I personally think that the claim that the lack of an aquarium usually makes a zoo bad is utterly ridiculous.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I agree with you there Thylo, I have also noticed that in cases where a city hosts both an aquarium and a zoo there generally isn't much overlap in species. San Diego Zoo/Seaworld, Seattle Aquarium/Woodland Park Zoo, Georgia Aquarium/Zoo Atlanta come to mind. While a few zoos do combine the two, like Point Defiance or the DWA, I think combining the two needs to be done well to maintain a good collection.
 
Two of Europe's biggest aquariums, Lisbon and Valencia, are in cities who's zoos lack aquariums.
Personally I like a zoo to have an aquarium. Burgers' Zoo has an aquarium that could easily stand alone as an attraction.
 
Maybe are you missing the whole thing? Your reply act as if I:
-Talked about the cities instead of the zoos (I mean, I KNOW that cities that have zoos and aquariums can have more species, but this thread is not about zoo-aquarium hybrids instead cities with zoos and aquariums????)
-Ridiculized the fact that I considere the quality of a zoo based mostly on the number of species held, that is not just a personal opinion (and so I talked according to my experience of zoos visited by me, and the general impession that I had of zoos with aquariums over zoos without them), but also an imperant opinion in a great portion of the zoo enthusiast world.
 
There's also some places that feel like a mix between a zoo and an aquarium.

New York Aquarium is a good example of this. The outdoor pathways give it a traditional zoo vibe while the indoor parts give it the traditional aquarium vibe.
 
Kakapo said:
Personally, I thing that a zoo without aquarium tend to be a bad zoo (with notable exceptions like San Diego) just because the number of species is much lower.
Click to expand...

that's just isn't true. A lot of good zoos don't have an aquarium. You don't judge a zoo just based of it's species number/rarity or else Plzen would be the best zoo. Also if aquarium is just a building within the zoo, what's the difference between an aquarium in a zoo and two seperate entity?
 
I'm not opposed to seeing Aquariums in zoos, but it's not something I get excited over. I'm just not a really big fish person and prefer to see zoos focusing on mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Keeping some fish is fine, but I don't think they should be a primary focus of zoos.
 
I've seen a few aquariums in zoos, including the hybrid zoo-aquariums, such as Pittsburgh, but I feel like most of the "zoo" aquariums that I've seen - Columbus, Houston, Milwaukee - while offering a nice touch of biodiversity, tend to be on the smaller side and just touch the surface of aquatic life. This sort of ties into the separate discussion about whether or not a zoo can be too big, but if you were to have a full-sized aquarium attached to a full-sized zoo, I think it would definitely be too much for a single day visit.

Aquariums are also uniquely suited to take advantage of real estate that zoos can't use, such as more urbanized sites, old shopping malls, etc. If I only had so many physical acres to build exhibits in my zoo, I'd be reluctant to build an aquarium which could probably work just as well at another site. That being said, it's a very rare zoo I've been to that doesn't have at least one fish exhibit somewhere.
 
Zoo Tampa has several aquarium exhibits in the Manatee Center. Of course the large manatee pools are the main attraction, but there are a few side tanks of fair size in the building too. Right outside of the building is the Stingray petting tank (currently undergoing major renovation) and the otter enclosure.

Interestingly, there used to be several more, including two large tanks. However, over time they were replaced with reptiles. Of particular note is the nurse shark tank that now holds iguanas.

The replacements mainly started really happening once the large Florida Aquarium opened in Tampa. Now we have a significantly larger amount of species between the two facilities and two far better facilities than a fairly small zoo aquarium section.
 
It's something I wish happened more often, I love both regular zoos and aquariums, so I always love seeing a zoo with an aquarium section, or at least a couple of fish tanks.
 
I wish I could still say London Zoo. I managed to visit a short while before the aquarium was permanently closed (can’t remember exactly when it closed), and I was surprised at both how big it was and how good it was, my assumption was that it would be a small corridor with a number of small tanks and common species, but I was pleasantly surprised at its quality. It’s a real shame it was closed in this regard, especially given its history, and unfortunately another one of ZSL’s many controversial decisions in recent years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top