The text below the options suggests that it is. I'm more inclined to believe that is a mistake, though.
Do you prefer reptile houses being the only places to see herptiles in a zoo?
- Thread starter JezP100
- Start date
I agree with this! My preference is a reptile building, then maybe a few others scattered elsewhere (like Bronx has a few in the jungle, congo, and madagascar buildings, Columbus has a few in the asia building, etc.) The only place I can think of that has a decent amount without a dedicated building is Omaha, and even then, their species number is lower than what a comparatively sized place would have and are restricted to the regions focused on in the buildings.
In my experience, places without a building that do have some smaller species have outdoor viewing windows, which glare makes near-impossible to see.
Many visitors are turned off by the idea of a reptile house due to their fear of herps. I feel like exhibits that blend reptiles in (such as some mentioned in this thread, my local Desert Dome and Lied Jungles as an example), might be good ways to show reptiles to the fearing public, perhaps changing their minds? I'm no psychologist though...
I also like reptiles being put into other exhibits because I appreciate a diverse representation of taxa. I've said it before, but I get so tired of exhibits being solely big, likable animals. One of the reasons I think Jungleworld is so perfect is because it's a blend of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. This showcases what an actual ecosystem is and all the components that make it function. I prefer reptiles in other exhibits other than just a reptile house to represent cohesive ecosystems.
I also like reptiles being put into other exhibits because I appreciate a diverse representation of taxa. I've said it before, but I get so tired of exhibits being solely big, likable animals. One of the reasons I think Jungleworld is so perfect is because it's a blend of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects. This showcases what an actual ecosystem is and all the components that make it function. I prefer reptiles in other exhibits other than just a reptile house to represent cohesive ecosystems.
Fear is a really good point! My mom will not go anywhere she thinks there might be snakes, so in that regard, herp buildings are very helpful to us. Snakes scattered in among other types of animals in mixed buildings would just make her scream and run away (and make me angry and embarrassed).
Yeah, like I said, I can't speak for everyone. I may just be bitter I never saw a tarsier at Ueno because my aunt refused to go into the small mammal house
Yeah, like I said, I can't speak for everyone. I may just be bitter I never saw a tarsier at Ueno because my aunt refused to go into the small mammal house
What does she have against small mammals?
I really enjoy reptile houses. But I also enjoy it if there are some terrariums dotted around a tropical house or for example an elephant house because it makes it more interesting if the other animals are in their outdoor enclosures or not visivle.
The only thing I dislike for some reason is when there is only one terrarium... I don't knwo why but if there is only one terrarium it feels like something is missing.
The only thing I dislike for some reason is when there is only one terrarium... I don't knwo why but if there is only one terrarium it feels like something is missing.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I enjoy a reptile house but I prefer a thoughtful display in other areas as it makes those far richer and more exciting - there is always something to see and explore.
From inside tropical houses to mixed exhibits with primates etc it’s the little ‘moments’ that make a difference that I don’t find I have so much in specific houses.
That said a well done reptile house is also good but so often they are really just rows of tanks. Thoughtfully done they are still fun though.
Mixed areas such as in the primate houses at Chester or near and above the rhinos in Colchester work well.
Much depends on the exhibtry and the signage for me. So wherever they are, good layouts, space the animals vs the tanks need, decent lighting, interesting height changes and informative information are key.
From inside tropical houses to mixed exhibits with primates etc it’s the little ‘moments’ that make a difference that I don’t find I have so much in specific houses.
That said a well done reptile house is also good but so often they are really just rows of tanks. Thoughtfully done they are still fun though.
Mixed areas such as in the primate houses at Chester or near and above the rhinos in Colchester work well.
Much depends on the exhibtry and the signage for me. So wherever they are, good layouts, space the animals vs the tanks need, decent lighting, interesting height changes and informative information are key.
She's scared of literally everything. Rodents, nocturnal animals, bats, reptiles, bugs, the usualWhat does she have against small mammals?
My genuine answer is I like a little of both.
The way I look at it is this -- biogeographic ecosystem-based exhibits are better for educating visitors about ecosystems and can provide greater immersion and stronger narratives, but individual animals can be overshadowed or lost in the shuffle both in terms of public attention and long-term collection planning, but dedicated taxonomic species can provide greater flexibility for husbandry and may ensure a more rounded and comprehensive collection overall. The former also tend to be more anchored by keystone species in my experience, usually charismatic megafauna, while modern examples of the latter do a better job of keeping diverse species on an even playing field relative to one another.
I also think, critically -- biogeographic exhibits really tend to focus on a certain handful of iconic environments, and there's good reasons for that, but there are also animals that live in environments that won't lend to this approach. The Herpetarium at the Saint Louis Zoo includes pit vipers from Ukraine and Armenia -- both of these animals would be less likely to fit in a biogeographic collection. We've also seen that biogeography is not always a sure thing for less popular species, either - there are many Asian rainforest exhibits, for example, but still many captive Asian hoofstock and primate populations that are in decline - and the tendency in many cases is to include only a few token reptiles (or birds, or small mammals) which may or may not guarantee real diversity for these groups, depending how many habitats are represented in this way.
So, my personal preference is to have a dedicated taxonomic space, such as a reptile house or herpetarium, ideally something flexible so species can be rotated in and out based on the needs for breeding and display, but still work certain species into biogeographic exhibits as well for educational value and to place them in context of an ecosystem when possible.
Obviously, not every zoo has room for both, and that's a choice to be made on an individual basis, but I would consider both more ideal than exclusively focusing on one or the other approach.
The way I look at it is this -- biogeographic ecosystem-based exhibits are better for educating visitors about ecosystems and can provide greater immersion and stronger narratives, but individual animals can be overshadowed or lost in the shuffle both in terms of public attention and long-term collection planning, but dedicated taxonomic species can provide greater flexibility for husbandry and may ensure a more rounded and comprehensive collection overall. The former also tend to be more anchored by keystone species in my experience, usually charismatic megafauna, while modern examples of the latter do a better job of keeping diverse species on an even playing field relative to one another.
I also think, critically -- biogeographic exhibits really tend to focus on a certain handful of iconic environments, and there's good reasons for that, but there are also animals that live in environments that won't lend to this approach. The Herpetarium at the Saint Louis Zoo includes pit vipers from Ukraine and Armenia -- both of these animals would be less likely to fit in a biogeographic collection. We've also seen that biogeography is not always a sure thing for less popular species, either - there are many Asian rainforest exhibits, for example, but still many captive Asian hoofstock and primate populations that are in decline - and the tendency in many cases is to include only a few token reptiles (or birds, or small mammals) which may or may not guarantee real diversity for these groups, depending how many habitats are represented in this way.
So, my personal preference is to have a dedicated taxonomic space, such as a reptile house or herpetarium, ideally something flexible so species can be rotated in and out based on the needs for breeding and display, but still work certain species into biogeographic exhibits as well for educational value and to place them in context of an ecosystem when possible.
Obviously, not every zoo has room for both, and that's a choice to be made on an individual basis, but I would consider both more ideal than exclusively focusing on one or the other approach.
I don’t think I am saying anything groundbreaking by saying that I am impressed when I see a zoo do both. However, combine both taxonomic and geographic displays is another option I think that works. I was very impressed when I saw Jacksonville zoo have three herp houses with each house holding a decent number of species while being a part of a greater exhibit. I understand the convenience of having everything in one place but I guess I find scattered displays a bit engaging.
Having worked in different collections its a tough one..I'm old school in some ways..worked in an invertebrate house for years..we had a few dotted in a Brazil exhibit. Rest in the house..some exhibits I've seen it works well..some in the US do it well e.g. desert dome..taxonomic groups makes it easier to see the stuff you specialise or follow in..if I go to a zoo now I pretty much ignore most ungulates and big cats unless it's something unusual like a Persian leopard or lesser seen..when I did a zoo tour in Berlin collections it was easier to bypass a lot of stuff with no interest. That's when taxonomic grouping is good..I did a tour of spirit of the Jaguar in Chester.. that was well done..Scolopendra in a log etc..tough answer..American zoos do it well as they have big cash in some
Yesterday I visited the Toronto Zoo for the first time, and was impressed that they had a rather sizeable reptile collection, but interspersed throughout the zoo. The zoo had a pavilion in each major zone, featuring herps, birds, small mammals, and fish. While no strict reptile house, one of the highlights of the zoo was an impressive number of turtles- as each Pavilion seemed to have 3-4 species at least. So while reptile houses can be great, it can honestly be equally, if not more so, impressive to feature them interspersed throughout.
biggest_dreamer
Well-Known Member
This is me, and why I very strongly appreciate dedicated reptile houses carrying the brunt of a zoo's reptiles. While I'm perfectly fine with amphibians, turtles, crocodilians, lizards, and even other legless species, there's just something about snakes that immediately turns on my flight instinct, hard. For that reason it's nice to be able to go, okay, I need to be "on guard" while walking through this particular building, so that I can be relaxed and fully enjoy the rest of the zoo without having to suffer a random panic attack because I noticed something out of the corner of my eye. Thankfully I do the vast majority of my zoo-going with my wife, who is great at scouting reptile houses out and telling me what's "safe" to look at.
I understand this is an atypical problem to have, especially for someone who generally does want to see the other herps, but the tendency to keep them all in one place sure does help me out immensely.
Completely Agree!
I get it! I had a phobia of bats for a long time, and still have a fear of them, and it was always immensely helpful when there was a designated bat area or building that I could skip. At DWA I had to literally run past them. It also helped me work through my phobia, because I could choose when to see them, for how long, etc. and easily remove myself from the situation if I got overwhelmed.