Frank Buck Zoo Frank Buck Zoo - Species List - December 11th, 2022

[MGolka]

Complete Species List from my visit on December 11th, 2022.
Italics - Signed, not seen

Grouped by exhibit, multiple times listed = multiple exhibits (or number of exhibits in a complex)

Black-bellied Whistling Duck
Caribbean Flamingo
Chilean Flamingo

American Black Bear (x4)

Red Fox (x2)

Black Vulture

Empty Exhibit

Domestic Rabbit

Blue-crowned Conure

Yellow-naped Amazon

*Empty Exhibits were under refurbishment with no signs, map has a wolf icon on these exhibits (x2)

Cheetah

American Alligator

Asian Small-clawed Otter

Cheetah

Miniature Zebu
Miniature Horse

Pygmy Goat

Vietnamese Pot-bellied Pig

African Spurred Tortoise
Leopard Tortoise

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Red Ruffed Lemur

Ring Tailed Lemur

White-handed Gibbon

Ostrich
Nubian Ibex
Helmeted Guineafowl
Reticulated Giraffe (Generic) - Off-exhibit due to wet conditions

Arabian Camel (Dromedary)
Spotted Donkey

Bennett's Wallaby

Swamp Wallaby

Reeves' Muntjac

Clouded Leopard

Geoffroy's Cat

Squirrel Monkey (x2)

Burmese Python

Military Macaw

Patagonian Cavy

Ring-tailed Coati

Lesser Rhea
Alpaca

Inside Gift Shop/Education Center
Pueblan Milk Snake

Crested Gecko

Madagascar Hissing Cockroach

Leopard Gecko

Rose Hair Tarantula


I do plan on posting updated pictures of this zoo once I get back home, will post the link to the gallery in this thread once uploaded.

 

[Smaggledagle]

Were the squirrel monkey species common or black-capped?

 

[MGolka]

Were the squirrel monkey species common or black-capped?

They were signed as just "Squirrel Monkey" but the Latin name on the sign was the Common Squirrel Monkey (with a Black-capped picture on sign). They were definitely Common Squirrel monkeys though. I will post a photo of them in the gallery.

 

[snowleopard]

Thanks for the list! Approximately 45 species is certainly not very many. When I visited the zoo in 2015 I was not at all impressed, with many empty exhibits, dreadful signage, and there's a reason this place only gets 70,000 annual visitors. I will end on a positive note by saying that perhaps things have improved a little since then, and the African Savanna is spacious and surrounded by a nice raised boardwalk.

 

[15399]

They were signed as just "Squirrel Monkey" but the Latin name on the sign was the Common Squirrel Monkey (with a Black-capped picture on sign). They were definitely Common Squirrel monkeys though. I will post a photo of them in the gallery.

Were the squirrel monkey species common or black-capped?

The vast majority of squirrel monkeys in the US are common squirrel monkeys, except for two females at Buffalo Zoo and a few roadside zoos that are keeping black-capped. Unless something explicitly says black-capped, then it's almost certainly a common, as that's what most of the squirrel monkeys in US Zoos are.

 

[TinoPup]

The vast majority of squirrel monkeys in the US are common squirrel monkeys, except for two females at Buffalo Zoo and a few roadside zoos that are keeping black-capped. Unless something explicitly says black-capped, then it's almost certainly a common, as that's what most of the squirrel monkeys in US Zoos are.

Common squirrel monkey has been split into 3-4 species, though.

 

[15399]

Common squirrel monkey has been split into 3-4 species, though.

I can't speak for outside the AZA, but as of earlier this year, inside the AZA the vast majority of squirrel monkeys are of the common squirrel monkey, Samiri sciureus. Yes, multiple other populations of squirrel monkey have been elevated to species level, but those other species are not present within the AZA. There is a small number of hybrids though, and an even smaller number of black-capped squirrel monkeys.
However, its worth noting that these squirrel monkey splits are based off of only DNA and not biological, morphological, or ecological differences, making it one of those splits due to extremely slight DNA differences that I question the validity of. But whatever, what does or doesn't count as the same species isn't my decision to make.

 

[TinoPup]

I can't speak for outside the AZA, but as of earlier this year, inside the AZA the vast majority of squirrel monkeys are of the common squirrel monkey, Samiri sciureus. Yes, multiple other populations of squirrel monkey have been elevated to species level, but those other species are not present within the AZA. There is a small number of hybrids though, and an even smaller number of black-capped squirrel monkeys.
However, its worth noting that these squirrel monkey splits are based off of only DNA and not biological, morphological, or ecological differences, making it one of those splits due to extremely slight DNA differences that I question the validity of. But whatever, what does or doesn't count as the same species isn't my decision to make.

Saimiri sciureus. Even IUCN follows the split, and they tend to be very slow to do that. It's Guianan squirrel monkey, not common squirrel monkey. *Most* previously called common are Guianan, but it's not a blanket statement, and therefore important to make the distinction.

 

[15399]

Saimiri sciureus. Even IUCN follows the split, and they tend to be very slow to do that. It's Guianan squirrel monkey, not common squirrel monkey. *Most* previously called common are Guianan, but it's not a blanket statement, and therefore important to make the distinction.

As discussed here:

For the IUCN, different taxonomic groups are covered by different taxonomists. Some groups are quickly lumped or split (often too quickly), while others are much slower. There are widely varying rates of updating of the groups as well. The African Elephant, for example, was last assessed in 2008 and they do mention that it probably consists of two separate species.

The Giraffe was last assessed in 2016, and they state that, with regards to the taxonomy, "Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo.".

The IUCN primate group are heavy splitters (unsurprisingly) with multiple species currently being recognized by them, that are most probably not valid (e.g. multiple titi monkeys).

the IUCN is not collectively slow to update taxonomy. Some of their taxonomy is slow to update (such as giraffes), other changes occur much quicker, with primates being quite notorious as one of the quickest to update. The big issue with arguing over taxonomy, however, is that "species" is a human concept in which nobody can agree upon a definition. There's an old joke that in a room of n biologists, you will have n+1 definitions for species. Some biologists (especially botanists) would even argue that species, as a concept, aren't real at all. The issue, in my opinion, is that with the modern-day technology related to DNA, way too many of the splits occurring in taxa is almost entirely due to DNA differences, whereas the species are still biologically the same (a.k.a capable of interbreeding), morphologically identical, and fill an identical ecological niche. Where on the other hand, there are different populations of the same species that may not be considered different species due to similar DNA, but have significant morphological and ecological differences. While one could argue that arguing over what constitutes a species is rather pedantic, the difficulty is that it has huge implications in the realm of conservation. Determining what constitutes a species (or subspecies) also determines what unit is being protected, and this determination may not always be at the same taxonomic level. For example, with these squirrel monkeys, what differences are there that would either prevent these species from interbreeding or cause the species to have different ecological niches? To the best of my knowledge, there is no differences of this type, and merely differences in their DNA. If one of these squirrel monkey species went extinct, and scientists released a different species in its place, would that new species take the exact same place the old one did, and cause no ecological change? With the case of the squirrel monkeys, I'd argue that yes, this probably would be the case, and that this justifies them being protected as a single species. For another example, I'll use tigers. This one goes the opposite direction- where there are significant ecological differences below the currently agreed-upon species level. While the different tiger subspecies may be more genetically similar than many species that were split, those purely DNA-based differences don't account for the vastly different ecological niches, and morphological differences between the subspecies. An amur tiger, if transplanted in Sumatra, would die, just as a Sumatran Tiger transplanted in Siberia would die. As such, conservation-wise, preserving tigers at the species level is essentially useless- as it is the subspecies level in which there are significant differences that aid in the animal's survival in its own respective ecosystem. Taxonomic levels themselves are largely an outdated concept as is, and ones with some dark origins (Linneaus was primarily interested in using taxonomy to justify biological differences and superiority between human races), and really the model that zoos should be using when determining what species to manage is the "evolutionarily significant unit", which essentially determines what level it is appropriate to manage a particular type of animal at- especially within a conservation context. Defining how we classify living things, especially in the onset of what is likely the sixth mass extinction, imperatively needs to be based on more than just differences in the genetic code.

 

[TinoPup]

That was a much bigger reply than you needed to type. Bobcats and Eurasian lynx could likely replace each other, does that mean they should be the same species? Multiple main sources cite common squirrel monkey being split, and that's plenty enough for me. Species being a human concept is irrelevant, because otherwise, why are we here? Nearly everything in our lives is a human concept.

 

[15399]

That was a much bigger reply than you needed to type. Bobcats and Eurasian lynx could likely replace each other, does that mean they should be the same species? Multiple main sources cite common squirrel monkey being split, and that's plenty enough for me. Species being a human concept is irrelevant, because otherwise, why are we here? Nearly everything in our lives is a human concept.

There are morphological differences and biological differences distinguishing Eurasian Lynx and Bobcat, for instance the fact Eurasian lynx and bobcat are significantly different in size. They also fill different ecological niches, with deer as a major prey of the Eurasian Lynx and Bobcats eating primarily smaller prey such as rabbits. Bobcats can also be found in multiple complete biomes that Eurasian Lynx cannot be found in (i.e. swamps and deserts), implying a level of versatility and adaptability not present in the Eurasian Lynx. These are major ecological and morphological differences that prove the bobcat and Eurasian lynx to be separate species. If you can provide morphological or ecological data that proves the split amongst squirrel monkeys, I'm all ears and will wholeheartedly accept the split, however I find that splits purely due to DNA/phylogenetics should not be considered valid as this can undermine conservation efforts when by all other standards the species are identical and fill identical ecological roles. Primates in particular have been over-split in recent years (yes, even by the IUCN), and this makes it more difficult for conservation groups to accurately determine where to prioritize resources and which biodiversity needs protection. Something as simple as whether two populations are the same species or different species can have huge implications for conservation- as that could determine whether you're dealing with one least concern species or two threatened ones. It's important to get these distinctions correct, so as to not waste resources saving species that don't need the help or ignore saving species that are, in actuality, very endangered. Even biologists cannot agree on how to define species and where to draw these lines- partially because in nature these strict sorts of lines don't actually exist (part of Darwin's argument in favor of evolution used exactly this sort of debate - lumpers vs. splitters - as evidence that it's extremely difficult to draw the lines between species implying some sort of common ancestor.