Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Corangurilla said:
Not sure how “hot” this one is, but I consider gorillas to be pseudo-pachyderms.
Yes, they are obviously primates, but they are the most pachyderm-like of all primates: they’re large, grey, African, and herbivorous, much like elephants, hippos, and rhinos.
If a zoo doesn’t have “traditional” pachyderms, I think gorillas can fill a similar niche. Como, Franklin Park, and Santa Barbara all lack the “grey giants”, but have gorillas, so they feel like they have pachyderms.
Also, if a zoo has elephants, hippos, rhinos, and gorillas, they are either flexing their acreage or one of those giants is getting the short end of the stick exhibit-wise (Memphis with elephants, Denver with hippos, Cincinnati with… all but gorillas at the moment).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you're fully understanding what a pachyderm is... :p

Manatees are something that can be considered more of a "pseudo-pachyderm," most certainly more than gorillas.
JVM said:
The entire Chicago-Wisconsin area seems to lack any robust South American collections unfortunately. There are definitely certain popular species around but it is a blind spot across multiple zoos here.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I'd say Brookfield has a pretty extensive collection of South American species: South American tapir, giant anteater, capybara, ocelot, coati, multiple primates, a plethora of rainforest and coastal birds, several dozens of neotropical herps, etc. It may not seem like it because these species are spread out across multiple different parts of the zoo, but it's much more substantial than you give it credit for here.
 
pachyderm pro said:
On the contrary, I'd say Brookfield has a pretty extensive collection of South American species: South American tapir, giant anteater, capybara, ocelot, coati, multiple primates, a plethora of rainforest and coastal birds, several dozens of neotropical herps, etc. It may not seem like it because these species are spread out across multiple different parts of the zoo, but it's much more substantial than you give it credit for here.
Click to expand...
And isn't the Living Coasts Building a South American exhibit? Or at least was at one time?
 
pachyderm pro said:
I'm not sure you're fully understanding what a pachyderm is... :p

Manatees are something that can be considered more of a "pseudo-pachyderm," most certainly more than gorillas.
Click to expand...
I’ve lurked this site long enough to know what is considered a “pachyderm”.
This is very much a me thing, but I noticed that Como doesn’t have any “pachyderms”, but they do have gorillas and they kind of fill that niche of a large, grey, African herbivore.
Franklin Park, ZSL London, and Bristol (when it was open) all have/had Pygmy hippos, tapirs, and gorillas in a combo I like to call “Pachyderm Lite”.
So yes, gorillas are not pachyderms, but I consider them an acceptable substitution for them.
 
birdsandbats said:
I do mean among the best. It's not a comprehensive tour of South American wildlife by any means - but you will not find many complexes that present South American wildlife in such an interesting, engaging, immersive, and unique way as Shedd. To me, a zoo collection doesn't need to be comprehensive - it should showcase animals in a way that gets visitors engaged and excited to see animals. You won't see many places doing this better than Shedd.
Click to expand...

Well, at least as Amazon Rising is concerned, it kind of needs to be engaging - some two-thirds of its species count are rather obscure small fish. I don't disagree on your point of the collection not needing to be comprehensive, but I doubt most people would think of Amazon Rising when looking for a top tier South American exhibit. A lot of small fish and herps with a handful of familiar small species doesn't exactly give the "fan favorite" award for most people. The exhibit gallery itself looks great, and it does look top tier, but I don't know if I'd quite rank it among the top contenders. Might be more convinced with an actual visit, who knows.
 
Neil chace said:
And isn't the Living Coasts Building a South American exhibit? Or at least was at one time?
Click to expand...
It was when it for most of its history, and a little bit of South American theming is still present, but the complex has really morphed into a "worldwide waters" kind of thing over the least few years.
 
Corangurilla said:
I’ve lurked this site long enough to know what is considered a “pachyderm”.
This is very much a me thing, but I noticed that Como doesn’t have any “pachyderms”, but they do have gorillas and they kind of fill that niche of a large, grey, African herbivore.
Franklin Park, ZSL London, and Bristol (when it was open) all have/had Pygmy hippos, tapirs, and gorillas in a combo I like to call “Pachyderm Lite”.
So yes, gorillas are not pachyderms, but I consider them an acceptable substitution for them.
Click to expand...
"Pachyderm" means "thick-skinned". So it should really be defined by the thickness of the animal's skin, not its gray color or quadrupedness. Gorillas and buffalo don't really qualify, but I do like the above suggestion of sirenians.
 
birdsandbats said:
"Pachyderm" means "thick-skinned". So it should really be defined by the thickness of the animal's skin, not its gray color or quadrupedness. Gorillas and buffalo don't really qualify, but I do like the above suggestion of sirenians.
Click to expand...
I know that gorillas are very much not pachyderms. What I’m trying to say is that if a zoo does not have the space for “true” pachyderms, then I think gorillas would make for an acceptable substitute.
Again, this is specific to me. I realize Como doesn’t have rhinos (the easiest of the grey giants), I see they have gorillas, and I’m like “well, why would they need rhinos if they have gorillas?”.
Maybe “pseudo-pachyderm” isn’t the right term? How about “honorary pachyderm”? They are pachyderms in spirit.
 
I for one aren't a big fan of the term pachyderm and pretty much don't use it at all anymore. It's not a taxonomically correct classification to begin with, as elephants are afrotherians, hippopotami are cetartiodactyls, and rhinos and tapirs are both perissodactyls. Plus the idea of "pachyderm houses" has predominately become a thing of the past as zoos increase the amount of space these animals have access to (and rightfully so).
 
I doubt this is much of a hot take on here but this is the best place I thought I could say this, but I generally think zoos and terrestrial creatures (mostly) are more interesting than aquariums. Don't get me wrong I love aquariums, but other than sharks, penguins, a good freshwater collection, and maybe marine mammals if any, I enjoy zoos more, which even then all of those are animals zoos can and do have. Almost everyone I know prefers aquariums to zoos. In fact, someone I know is (or was, I'm not sure of their stance now) opposed to zoos but loves the aquarium in our city. Maybe deep in the summer I can understand this view a bit more, but seeing an eland or lion beats seeing a reef tank for me.
 
Davdhole said:
I doubt this is much of a hot take on here but this is the best place I thought I could say this, but I generally think zoos and terrestrial creatures (mostly) are more interesting than aquariums. Don't get me wrong I love aquariums, but other than sharks, penguins, a good freshwater collection, and maybe marine mammals if any, I enjoy zoos more, which even then all of those are animals zoos can and do have. Almost everyone I know prefers aquariums to zoos. In fact, someone I know is (or was, I'm not sure of their stance now) opposed to zoos but loves the aquarium in our city. Maybe deep in the summer I can understand this view a bit more, but seeing an eland or lion beats seeing a reef tank for me.
Click to expand...

Ive met a number of regular people who are more opposed to zoos than to aquariums for ethical reasons. The basic idea is that they think captivity can cause animals to experience psychological distress, but they think that fish do not have advanced enough brains to experience this distress. For this reason, they believe that keeping fish in aquariums is ethical (because they believe captive fish cannot and do not suffer by living in captivity). Contrastingly, they believe that keeping terrestrial animals in zoos is unethical (because they believe that terrestrial animals can and do suffer by living in captivity). In my opinion, the whole premise is wrong. Both zoos and aquariums can be good or bad for their animals’ psychological well-beings— it just depends on the exhibitry and husbandry and resources etc of the particular institution.
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
Ive met a number of regular people who are more opposed to zoos than to aquariums for ethical reasons. The basic idea is that they think captivity can cause animals to experience psychological distress, but they think that fish do not have advanced enough brains to experience this distress. For this reason, they believe that keeping fish in aquariums is ethical (because they believe captive fish cannot and do not suffer by living in captivity). Contrastingly, they believe that keeping terrestrial animals in zoos is unethical (because they believe that terrestrial animals can and do suffer by living in captivity). In my opinion, the whole premise is wrong. Both zoos and aquariums can be good or bad for their animals’ psychological well-beings— it just depends on the exhibitry and husbandry and resources etc of the particular institution.
Click to expand...

Ironically however, aquariums are far less sustainable than zoos. The great majority of species still come from the wild. Strides are being made, especially in recent years, but it's just not there yet. Different side to the ethics debate there.
Fish certainly aren't brainless either, many of the ones I've kept could tell the difference between me and other people. They're not the smartest creatures, but they're not brainless.
 
JVM said:
One of the coldest takes on this website by now -- saying this to inform, not to insult. We've had multiple people who work in wildlife conservation come on to say that it is not possible for the AZA to support a second species of leopard under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
I'm aware, but I'd prefer if those Amur leopards weren't put into African sections unless there's literally no other place.
 
Davdhole said:
I doubt this is much of a hot take on here but this is the best place I thought I could say this, but I generally think zoos and terrestrial creatures (mostly) are more interesting than aquariums. Don't get me wrong I love aquariums, but other than sharks, penguins, a good freshwater collection, and maybe marine mammals if any, I enjoy zoos more, which even then all of those are animals zoos can and do have. Almost everyone I know prefers aquariums to zoos. In fact, someone I know is (or was, I'm not sure of their stance now) opposed to zoos but loves the aquarium in our city. Maybe deep in the summer I can understand this view a bit more, but seeing an eland or lion beats seeing a reef tank for me.
Click to expand...
Same. I guess its the same as how ordinary visitors see zoos as oppose to us zoochatters. It's just a matter of interested. I really do appreciate people who are interested in fish or marine inverts, because they are some of the more understudied group and the scientific community would need more of those, but myself are just not as interested to fish, because maybe they dont do as much or doesnt showcase as much variety? (i know this is not true at all, just i never really focus on them too much, and im definitely willing to learn more)
So yh, maybe its only because people enjoy things they like more as a personal opinion. :D
 
I like zoos better for photography but I'd prefer going to an aquarium over a zoo if I were to just go for the experience/not take photos (Although i think my aquarium photos have gotten better over the years if I do say so myself)
 
Given how many zoos in the US have phased out polar bears for the forseeable future, that actually had me thinking - if marketed well, I think ABC Island bears could actually be the best possible compromise as far as what to do with an empty polar bear habitat, given their strong genetic ties to polar bears. This is merely a shower thought, and I'm unsure whether this would ever get any traction or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top