Dinosaur exhibits in zoos

I agree with the other users that I wouldn't mind so much if the exhibits were actually accurate. I know that dino science changes constantly and it's hard for places to keep things accurate, but even newer stuff still likes to stick to the Jurassic Park style. Shoot, sometimes I look through recently published dinosaur guides and there are tons of species where the description says "this dinosaur had feathers" but then the illustration has no feathers!
 
Komodo99 said:
In the UK there tends to be very few such as Blackpool,West Midlands Safari park,Wingham Wildlife park and Combe Martin Wildlife and Dinosaur park that have these up permanently as park of their attractions while Chester and ZSL Whipsnade had temporary exhibits.
Click to expand...

Edinburgh have also had a temporary exhibit.
 
It's funny that this thread got revived. It made me remember the one time I did see dinosaur exhibits in a zoo and they had an animatronic tyrannosaur kids could take turns controlling. I got in trouble from this cranky old employee as well as my dad for apparently being too rough with the buttons and joystick. Whoops! :rolleyes:
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
I feel that they should either be accurate and include some specimens or just be left to the museums. Most of these exhibits seem rushed and basic...
Click to expand...
Yes the models could be accurate ie. feathers on coelurosauria theropods (the most 'birdy' like ones) but the reality is that the zoos buy/hire them as a cheap addition to the zoo. Easy to market to families, usually no extra charge and sometimes a vague nod to their connection to the living residents. From what I understand most of the models are generic copies of the original designs. Some museums put effort into creating unique realistic designs, but this is a huge investment that a zoo is very unlikely to do.
 
tetrapod said:
Yes the models could be accurate ie. feathers on coelurosauria theropods (the most 'birdy' like ones) but the reality is that the zoos buy/hire them as a cheap addition to the zoo. Easy to market to families, usually no extra charge and sometimes a vague nod to their connection to the living residents. From what I understand most of the models are generic copies of the original designs. Some museums put effort into creating unique realistic designs, but this is a huge investment that a zoo is very unlikely to do.
Click to expand...
Speaking of connections to residents of the zoo, wouldn’t it be neat if they were exhibited at the end of the exhibit? Nothing too huge just grab em from the zoo’s current collection.
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Speaking of connections to residents of the zoo, wouldn’t it be neat if they were exhibited at the end of the exhibit? Nothing too huge just grab em from the zoo’s current collection.
Click to expand...

This is a cool idea. I really like it when zoos use their collections to teach about other scientific concepts, like evolution. You don't have to examine a bird for too long to see the connection to theropod dinosaurs! In addition to the animals themselves, they could show some bird skeletons next to dino skeletons so people can more easily see the similarities.
 
@The Speeding Carnotaurus: no need to apologize - your spelling is fine.:)

You mean Sinornithosaurus sp.? Whether it was really venomous is still a matter of debate among paleontologists, as far as I know. I contemplated about getting a skull replica of it for the exhibition, but instead went for a more recent animal.;)
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Actually Welt der Gifte (sorry for the spelling) would be the perfect place to have a small dinosaur exhibit as there is one known venomous dinosaur!
Click to expand...
You mean Sinornithosaurus sp.? Whether it was really venomous is still a matter of debate among paleontologists, as far as I know. I contemplated about getting a skull replica of it for the exhibition, but instead went for a more recent animal.;)[/QUOTE]

As a dinonerd, I can safely say it was not venomous, as its dentition is not like snakes as previously hypothesised.
 
Amersfoort has "DinoPark", a forested area with about 70 dinosaurs models. The models are quite good and some therapods even have protofeathers.
 
Yi Qi said:
As a dinonerd, I can safely say it was not venomous, as its dentition is not like snakes as previously hypothesised.
Click to expand...
And as somewhat of a "venom nerd", I can safely say that there is quite a diversity in the dentition of venomous snakes, or rather, in regard to the structure and location of their venomous fangs, to make such a general statement ;) :) . If I recall correctly, said teeth of Sinornithosaurus sp. was originally compared by Gong et al. to opisthoglyphous snakes and helodermid lizards.
The birdlike raptor Sinornithosaurus was venomous
However, I think that the current data is too scarce to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if no venomous or poisonous dinosaur ever existed; it will just be incredibly difficult to prove it. Kudos to Michael Crichton for actually delivering this topic to a larger audience.
 
Hyak_II said:
We all know that birds are the highly derived descendants of dinosaurs. However they are not the same thing. They have had 65+ million years to evolve from their extinct founders, and are decidedly different creatures at this point.
Click to expand...
:mad: Oh, really? Tell that to Albert Chen.
https://www.deviantart.com/albertonykus/art/Ceratopsians-are-Not-Dinosaurs-162624543
According to the description of his satirical drawing, the exact same case could be made to consider ceratopsians non-dinosaurs, and wouldn’t that just be silly?
Sorry, but this type of comment bothers me, as it shows a gross lack of understanding of cladistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top