That depends on the species in question. As stated before, thorny devils can have individual preferences for certain species. So you would have to keep & breed several Iridomyrmex species parallelly and that in adequate constant numbers. What Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that while the genus might be common in their natural habitats, it is not very common among European ant keepers. Iridomyrmexpurpureus is the only species that I found randomly mentioned in the European ant trade, and it is rather hard to come by. Combine that with the general Australian reluctance to export native species, and your thorny devils are about as likely to grace your fictional zoo in real life as the aforementioned hoatzin, solendon, Galapagos iguanas etc.
I add that Thorny Devils have been kept in Europe (Zurich Zoo) in the 2010s, according to Zootierliste.
There may be these reptiles in other continents (Asian and American zoos perhaps), but I haven't information about it.
Yeah, and how did that turn out? Apparently not that positively for the poor creature...
Afaik, there are currently no thorny devils legally kept outside of Australia.
At least some highly specialised ant-eating reptiles can be kept in captivity, but most zoos are shy of doing so.
What is the evidence for the 2016 entry on Zootierliste? There is no reference for it on the site. I know the zoo had the species on the plan for their Australia House but I would hesitate to believe they actually managed to export any from Australia.
What is the evidence for the 2016 entry on Zootierliste? There is no reference for it on the site. I know the zoo had the species on the plan for their Australia House but I would hesitate to believe they actually managed to export any from Australia.
You're correct - there is no further information or evidence on this online. The ZTL entry only states "2016 - behind the scenes". Maybe @zoomaniac or @antonmuster can shed more light on this.
@Batto: Unfortunately, I can only say that I've been told they had them behind the scenes but were not succesfull to keep them alive until the new Australia exhibit opened.
At least they can be reared and bred in Australian zoos... ZooBorns
Otherwise they don't seem very hard to breed in captivity, but they're considered as quite "boring" (not very active). Additionnally they aren't a threatened species, and the Australian law on wildlife exports is notoriously restrictive, so there's little interest on them ; the public and private breeders prefer other species with a similar look as American Horned Lizards or even African Mastigures.
Sources : Thorny Devils in captivity https://reptilescove.com/care/lizards/moloch
As someone else wisely mentioned before: please do not try to argue with me like that. Just don't; it never ends well. And what's the deal with the pluralis majestatis?
As for the constant "It's just fiction / a fantasy" excuse: then don't pretend that you're "keeping it real(istic)".
If you want to play Zoo Tycoon here, then why not go full Zoo Tycoon and add dinosaurs, unicorns and yetis? They are about as unobtainable for you in real life as hoatzins, solenodons or thorny devils. Harsh? Maybe, but also true.
It appears that we're at odds due to bit of a culture clash. Some societies see direct critique as unnecessary, rude and personally insulting, others as a way of improvement. If the first scenario is the case, too bad, as this isn't my intention. However, unlike most of you, I have a different approach and insight to this matter due to my personal experience as someone who founded and is in charge of a (small yet real) zoo in real life. If you don't want my input, fine by me - but then please don't pretend that your fictional constructs are in any way realistic. Because that would be, to quote @CrashMegaraptor , silly...
This isn't only untrue, it's also kinda """segregating""": it all comes down to how the single person takes the critique, also it's not like it's always the bigger zoos that try to re-introduce a stock of animals that are not currently kept in captivity or that are the only keptors of uncommon animals in zoological institutions
This isn't only untrue, it's also kinda """segregating""": it all comes down to how the single person takes the critique, also it's not like it's always the bigger zoos that try to re-introduce a stock of animals that are not currently kept in captivity or that are the only keptors of uncommon animals in zoological institutions
Oh, cultural differences in discussion behavior is very much a thing - up to the point that global companies sometimes have to prepare and train their international staff accordingly.
As for your other points: I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion, but I can't recall stating that only big zoos can participate in reintroduction programs or keep rare species. As shown by @amur leopard , I actually keep several species in my tiny zoo that are very rare in European zoos - up to the point that WdG is currently the only European zoo keeping specimens. So *shrugs*
We would encourage the following types of discussions here:
hypothetical discussions about developments or exhibits in existing zoos
ideas for specific theoretical collections - such as geographical or species themes
speculation about extinct species and how they might be exhibited in zoos
individual designs for a fictional zoo where you have thought out how you might design exhibits, choose species to keep and encourage visitors - where other members may critique your design and make suggestions for improvement. The key word here is "design" - we expect some thought and detail, not simply listing species of animals.
Or to put it another way, the sharing of critique and advice is an integral part of any hypothetical zoo thread going forward, and declaring a thread is "just" fantasy and thus exempt from critique goes against this principle.
I, too, have a few reservations about the project. First let me be clear that this is uniquely intended as constructive criticism and absolutely not as any sort of slight towards the work you've done.
Let me begin that this shows great commitment - love to see the work being put into showing those reading what you picture the enclosures as resembling. Some of your ideas are great and I would honestly love to see some of them replicated in real zoos, and this is where your thread excels in my opinion, because your ideas for design and small 'subareas' are innovative for sure. I'm thinking things like the Cave beetles in the European Nocturnal area etc. I also like to see the occasional paragraph on a particular species, explaining why it is endangered, or what is special about it - these are really good things that enhance what you are writing.
Having said this, as Batto says, there are, for me, some slight issues with the way you are putting forward your ideas. I'm not saying how you're doing it is wrong in any way, I just think that it takes away some of what I, and I'm sure others, like about your project and detracts from the good things. Again, I do not mean this in an offensive way at all, but at times the merging of a clear attempt to make the zoo appear real and tangible (announcing breeding successes, talking about conservation efforts the zoo is involved in, discussing imports with other zoos) clashes quite clearly with some of the more 'out there' species choices.
As I have been working on a thread investigating this very thing for the past ten months, I have attempted to delve into the ins and outs of how zoos like Plzen or Moscow acquired their collection. There is always a logical explanation to how the animals come into their care. In far too many cases in this thread, there are examples of species who are not found in captivity in Europe yet were included in your zoo without any sort of explanation as to how they got there, and in the few cases where there is an attempt at giving background, the explanation is completely implausible. Within the spoiler below is an (almost) complete list of the species that were included in the zoo which are not found in European zoos yet no explanation was provided for their presence.
Yellow-browed bunting
Black-faced spoonbill
Common treeshrew
Indian vulture
Greater painted snipe
Asian openbill
Cardinal honeyeater
Striated babbler
Blue and white flycatcher
Coroneted fruit dove
Morepork
Australian bustard
Common striped possum
Honey possum
Southern brown kiwi
Grizzled tree kangaroo
Red-bellied pademelon
Brown-necked raven
Mountain gazelle
Bioko crowned monkey
West African bushbuck
Knysna turaco
Chestnut-flanked sparrowhawk
Black-headed heron
White-bellied bustard
Denham's bustard
African pygmy kingfisher
Little bee eater
Senegal coucal
Purple-throated sunbird
Masai giraffe
Short-snouted sengi
Echo parakeet
Mauritius olive white-eye
Woolly lemur
Two-spot pike cichlid
Saw-jawed monocle bream
Filament glassfish
Cleaner mimic
Northern saw-whet owl
Eastern towhee
Red-winged blackbird
Anhinga
Tricolored heron
Little blue heron
Snail kite
Purple gallinule
Cocoi heron
Purplish-backed jay
Orange-breasted bunting
Hoatzin
Red acouchy
Cuban solenodon (you say they come from Havana Zoo - there are no solenodons at Havana Zoo...?)
Plate-billed mountain toucan
Orange-chinned parakeet
Inca dove
Toucan barbet
Resplendent quetzal
Ruby topaz
Galapagos hawk
Adelie penguin
Emperor penguin
Spanish spadefoot toad
Southern spectacled salamander
Sao Tome caecilian
Paradoxical frog
Gold-spotted marsupial frog
Japanese giant salamander
Marine iguana
Galapagos land iguana
Indian water snake
Thorny devil
Long-nosed snake
Green night adder
Halys pitviper
The point therefore made by @Batto and myself is that while you go to the effort of including various aspects that would make your zoo seem like a more realistic concept, the inclusion of such species without any justification undermines what you are trying to achieve.
Honestly, it's entirely up to you if you wish to listen to what we are saying and change anything about your zoo to remedy it. I recognise that it is a bit frustrating and that you have probably heard enough but I thought I'd just reinforce the point and give my feedback. And remember that none of this was meant to cause any offense whatsoever, and that I have greatly appreciated your ideas overall .
Indeed - the mountain toucan, the fruit dove and the spectacled salamanders (perhaps a couple more) are found in one collection, but there is either only one individual of the species left in Europe (as is the case with the first two) or kept entirely behind the scenes in unknown numbers (as is the case with the latter), so I deemed them more or less justified inclusions to the list. But you are right, was somewhat hoping no one would pick up on that… .
Indeed - the mountain toucan, the fruit dove and the spectacled salamanders (perhaps a couple more) are found in one collection, but there is either only one individual of the species left in Europe (as is the case with the first two) or kept entirely behind the scenes in unknown numbers (as is the case with the latter), so I deemed them more or less justified inclusions to the list. But you are right, was somewhat hoping no one would pick up on that… .
I'll just leave this highlighted segment here, from the original post by Sim drawing up the rules for the new SpecZoo forum:
Or to put it another way, the sharing of critique and advice is an integral part of any hypothetical zoo thread going forward, and declaring a thread is "just" fantasy and thus exempt from critique goes against this principle.
.
.