Underrepresented animals in zoos

CheeseChameleon1945

CheeseChameleon1945

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Some taxonomic groups are overlooked than others, and its understandable, since most of the general public are familiar with ABC animals. But Some specific groups may be so diverse and so interesting, yet zoos often shove them to the side. Are there any types of these animals that you can think of?
I Immediately think small cats, as they are a very fascinating group of carnivores indeed, but are often in a shadow that are big cats. Thinking of other mammals, small nocturnal primates would often be tucked away in a nocturnal section, not getting a lot of attention from the visitors. Of course, Invertebrates, how awesome they may be, don't represented in a large majority at ALL in most zoos, with the exception of designated insect houses such as Cincinnati's Miraculous bug house. But what other groups am I missing, and do you think some specific taxonomic groups of animals should be more "put up front" in the general public's eye? Leave your thoughts below.
 
Sea snakes. Very few aquariums have them, and from what (admittedly little) I understand about their care is that they aren't too much more difficult to keep than regular, terrestrial snakes, and as they only leave the water to breathe, there is little chance of escapes.
 
DaLilFishie said:
Sea snakes. Very few aquariums have them, and from what (admittedly little) I understand about their care is that they aren't too much more difficult to keep than regular, terrestrial snakes, and as they only leave the water to breathe, there is little chance of escapes.
Click to expand...
Yes, sea snakes, how fascinating they may be, I can't really think of that many places holding them. And, there is a number of Sea snakes that are under threat or endangered, and I am not sure many (or any) Ex-situ populations are being developed anywhere, is there?
 
Dassie rat said:
I would say 'worms'. They comprise several unrelated phyla, most of which I have never seen in captivity
Click to expand...
Worms are such awesome creatures, and with so many different species you begin to think of the whole scale of the entire phylum, its pretty crazy. I would assume it would be a little different to keep very specialized and interesting worms in zoological institutions however, mainly because of so many different taxa's life span, which I don't think is ever that great. And I don't think many worms will get the public's attention, so That's probably why they're not kept.
 
DaLilFishie said:
from what (admittedly little) I understand about their care is that they aren't too much more difficult to keep than regular, terrestrial snakes, and as they only leave the water to breathe, there is little chance of escapes.
Click to expand...
Given the diversity of sea snakes, I'd be careful to make sweeping generalization regarding their husbandry. Quite a bunch of them are nutrional specialists whose diet requirements are very hard (and pricey) to meet adequately. Chronic stress, problems with proper hydration, prolonged anorexia, parasite overload (they do have some of the weirdest snake mites I've ever seen), technopathies (from booping their noses too often against the glass)...there are several reasons for sea snakes not being common in captivity. And don't forget the potent venom in some species with little available antivenom - not the dream scenario for any modern security-minded zoo / aquaria director...
 
That makes perfect sense why they wouldn't keep them, definitely underrepresented though. :)
The Toledo zoo is the only place I know holding sea kraits, and from my understanding they have been kept for a while now, are they still there?
 
In general, you could ask yourself WHY certain species are more prevalent in zoos than others.
There are various good reasons for that. Availability might be one. Adaption to captivity conditions, easiness of husbandry, price...but one thing some of you seem to forget: money, and a positive public image. Among many things, zoos are businesses. Certain species are more attractive to average visitors. Who are, even if their presence annoys zoo nerds, the vast majority of (paying) customers. So the zoos will carter to their demands and wishes. And most visitors won't go to a zoo to see "worms". Unless it's an adult Arrakis sandworm... ;)
A smart zoo with ample resources and capable staff can still manage to sneek some zoological "oddities" for the nerds in between. But the zoological crowd pleasers usually come first. And the more space is required for them, the more "underrepresented species" we'll get.
 
Yes, I know all of that, but it wasn't my point. I was asking what taxa of animals were more prominent than others, and should be more prominent and represented. Not a matter of realism right now, were just discussing what animals are underrepresented more than impossible to keep. ;)
 
Batto said:
"worms". Unless it's an adult Arrakis sandworm... ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, but most people won't be that interested in seeing "bats", yet zoos still keep them anyway. We don't need the Sandworm from dune to catch peoples eye in my opinion.
 
CheeseChameleon2007 said:
Yes, I know all of that, but it wasn't my point.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you don't. You seem to be always excited and smitten by all kinds of animals, but you display little knowledge about the actual practical implementations of your grand ideas and scenarios in regard to actually keeping them. Given your young age and lack of actual experience, I can't blame you for that, but it's becoming quite tedious, not just for me.

There are literally millions of animal species not in captivity, for a variety of reasons. I see little point in mentioning all of them.
 
Batto said:
Apparently, you don't. You seem to be always excited and smitten by all kinds of animals, but you display little knowledge about the actual practical implementations of your grand ideas and scenarios. Given your young age and lack of actual experience, I can't blame you for that.

There are literally millions of animal species not in captivity, for a variety of reasons. I see little point in mentioning all of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know there aren't many species kept in captivity, due to limited resources, and cost. But some species like small cats can be kept in captivity, but specific species are underrepresented or uncommon in general, it doesn't matter how hard to maintain the species.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the point @Batto is trying to make, is that you have to make a difference between Underepresented animals in zoos and Impossible to represent animals in zoos.

An underpresented family for me could be for example Sandgrouses. Fairly easy to keep I believe, interesting birds that make a great alternative option to quails or other ground birds and yet they're not exhibited in many zoos.

An Impossible to represent animal could be 3-toed sloths, makes no sense to try to bring them in European / American zoos, even though they're nice and underepresented and I would love to see one, but it's just useless considering how much it would cost to feed them. Let them be in South America, if conservation needs to be done than in-situ will do better than ex-situ anyway.
 
Rayane said:
I think the point @Batto is trying to make, is that you have to make a difference between Underepresented animals in zoos and Impossible to represent animals in zoos.

An underpresented family for me could be for example Sandgrouses. Fairly easy to keep I believe, interesting birds that make a great alternative option to quails or other ground birds and yet they're not exhibited in many zoos.

An Impossible to represent animal could be 3-toed sloths, makes no sense to try to bring them in European / American zoos, even though they're nice and underepresented and I would love to see one, but it's just useless considering how much it would cost to feed them. Let them be in South America, if conservation needs to be done than in-situ will do better than ex-situ anyway.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the suggestion, I should make it more clear to people that the first Point about sandgrouses was what I was trying to imply with this thread, sorry if that confused people. Yes, sandgrouses are often underrepresented zoos sadly. They are elusive birds though, and I'm not so sure how well of a display piece it would be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CheeseChameleon2007 said:
Yes, but most people won't be that interested in seeing "bats",
Click to expand...
I would disagree with this. For sure they aren't a marquee species like Elephants or Lions, but they do have at least some appeal. Vampire Bats especially are quite popular due to the mythology around them. Fruit bats as well are quite popular in my experience.
Rayane said:
An Impossible to represent animal could be 3-toed sloths, makes no sense to try to bring them in European / American zoos, even though they're nice and underepresented and I would love to see one, but it's just useless considering how much it would cost to feed them.
Click to expand...
Dallas World Aquarium kept Three-Toed Sloths for many years;). Although they're obviously a special case.
 
TZDugong said:
I would disagree with this. For sure they aren't a marquee species like Elephants or Lions, but they do have at least some appeal. Vampire Bats especially are quite popular due to the mythology around them. Fruit bats as well are quite popular in my experience.
Click to expand...
This is very true, thanks for sharing and addressing my mistake! Sadly it seems like Mistakes is what I'm most useful for, but whatever.

TZDugong said:
Dallas World Aquarium kept Three-Toed Sloths for many years;). Although they're obviously a special case.
Click to expand...
I think what @Rayane meant there are not very many places that keep this species, Dallas world aquarium is one of the exceptions for these animals in captivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top