Road trip recommendations

[birdsandbats]

To be fair, even with Amazon Rising open, a very large percentage of the collection is off exhibit or not seen one way or another. The last time I bothered to count, it was closer to 800 species signed, of which I saw around 450, meaning that one would probably see more species at zoo Berlin than Shedd.

Fish are easier to move around, leave unsigned, and be missed than the countless birds, mammals, and other taxa of the Berlins.

I love Shedd, and its species rotation means that there is always something new, but I also think that certain posted numbers can be misleading.

Last time I was at Shedd, I counted 1147 species total. Of course, at the time, Amazon Rising, Caribbean Reef, and Underwater Beauty were all open, contributing significantly to the species count, having 245, 99 and 267 species respectively. This does not mean Shedd has lost 611 species by losing these areas, since some are shared with other complexes, but it does give you a good sense of what's gone atm.

Underwater Beauty and Caribbean Reef being permanently gone are some of the biggest losses in zoo history, imo.

 

[CMP]

Last time I was at Shedd, I counted 1147 species total. Of course, at the time, Amazon Rising, Caribbean Reef, and Underwater Beauty were all open, contributing significantly to the species count, having 245, 99 and 267 species respectively. This does not mean Shedd has lost 611 species by losing these areas, since some are shared with other complexes, but it does give you a good sense of what's gone atm.

Underwater Beauty and Caribbean Reef being permanently gone are some of the biggest losses in zoo history, imo.

That count was actually pre Shedd Go app, so with all galleries open. The app seems to have more species signed than there were physically signed previously, but I'm doubtful all of the species listed in the app are actually on exhibit most of the time.

 

[JVM]

This plays into my big nitpick with the Shedd - for such a massive collection of species, probably less than a tenth of that list are given the chance to stand out with only bare essentials signage for the rest.

 

[SwampDonkey]

This plays into my big nitpick with the Shedd - for such a massive collection of species, probably less than a tenth of that list are given the chance to stand out with only bare essentials signage for the rest.

Yeah, that's an aquarium problem in general, they don't keep up with signage. Perhaps with digital signs becoming common we will see a change in that.

 

[TinoPup]

Yeah, that's an aquarium problem in general, they don't keep up with signage. Perhaps with digital signs becoming common we will see a change in that.

Digital signs themselves are an issue, though. They also don't get updated very often at most facilities, and usually don't include binomial names.

 

[birdsandbats]

but I'm doubtful all of the species listed in the app are actually on exhibit most of the time.

Any reason you suspect that? It's hard to say of course but it sure seemed to be completely accurate.

 

[CMP]

Any reason you suspect that? It's hard to say of course but it sure seemed to be completely accurate.

I can't say with confidence without looking deeper into the numbers, which I don't really have time for atm, but when I looked at your species list after the app, most of the species lists looked inflated, with the 'extra' species being ones I didn't see.

That being said, a quick skim through, and it looks more like the app includes previously unsigned species, like freshwater sole, so I am inclined to go back on that statement. Did your 1147 number double up species? Because 300 species is still a lot to go unsigned.

 

[birdsandbats]

I can't say with confidence without looking deeper into the numbers, which I don't really have time for atm, but when I looked at your species list after the app, most of the species lists looked inflated, with the 'extra' species being ones I didn't see.

That being said, a quick skim through, and it looks more like the app includes previously unsigned species, like freshwater sole, so I am inclined to go back on that statement. Did your 1147 number double up species? Because 300 species is still a lot to go unsigned.

Nope, I was very careful not to double up species. 1147 is the completely accurate number.

 

[SwampDonkey]

and usually don't include binomial names.

That hasn't been what I have seen, but to be fair I have only seen them widely adopted in a few places.

 

[TinoPup]

That hasn't been what I have seen, but to be fair I have only seen them widely adopted in a few places.

Maybe the north will catch on to what they're doing in the south, then! I almost never see them. I also feel like places are more likely to use a generic name (like "clownfish" or whatever) with the electronic ones, but I'll have to go through and actually check photos for that to see if it's true or not.

 

[SwampDonkey]

Maybe the north will catch on to what they're doing in the south, then! I almost never see them. I also feel like places are more likely to use a generic name (like "clownfish" or whatever) with the electronic ones, but I'll have to go through and actually check photos for that to see if it's true or not.

The Florida Aquarium has been replacing old signs with rotating ones that show binomial names - the new MORPHD exhibit does it really cool with both signs and projections.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Im not too opposed to digital signage, but there are two main problems I have seen with it. First, I have had issues with slideshow-style signs for mixed species exhibits or free-flight aviaries. It can take a really long time to wait for the sign to rotate through all of the species present, which I find annoying. Another issue with digital signs is if they break down. For example, at the Bronx Zoo they have a lot of digital signs in Jungle World, but a lot of these signs no longer work so you just end up with a black screen.

 

[willem]

It can take a really long time to wait for the sign to rotate through all of the species present, which I find annoying.

I couldn’t agree more. I prefer the good old non digital signage including scientific names (and preferable common english, french and german names as well; if it is not available in dutch ofcourse ).

Do you have a 5.5 hour drive ahead of you now? It will probably serve as a litmus test for the rest of your trip, as there is almost nothing but corn and soy fields between Chicago and the Ohio cities. Safe travels!

Thank you very much! I think I passed the test, since I am already in St Louis! Which means I have time for a new update. After Shedd I drove to Columbus the same day, slept in a Super 8 so I could be at the gates the moment the zoo would open. It looked a bit strange at first sight: a rollercoaster, a ferris wheel, an entrance as if you entered a themepark. But I skipped that corner and went directly to manatee coast: magnificent! A beautiful display, clear water and a lot to see and discover. Completely different then exhibits I’m used to, like those in Beauval or Burgers Zoo where they focus on a more tropical Amazone setting. I didnt like the Asian part of Australia & islands much, mostly because of the bad exhibits for the gibbons and orangutans. But the Australian collection was very nice, especially in the nocturnal house. First exhibit once you enter, is for leafy sea dragons: what a brilliant start (in Europe you wont see these much).
Congo was nice, but nothing special (maybe even a bit dull). Asian Quest I liked very much. Good nice theming, some excellent exhibits and surprises en route; all that Congo didn’t have as much.
North America was already very nice, but must become brilliant, when they will renew this area part by part the upcoming years.
The great savannah of Africa was excellent, including the optical combination with the lions. It would even be better if they could make it a bit more regional correct species wise and move for example the northern African species to the entrance part (instead of donkeys and ostriches). And what a pity the part of the walkway with some of the best savannah views is reserved for feeding giraffes. For which you have to pay and does feel a bit like a circus attraction. Is this a typical American thing? The waterhole exhibit is very original. Not something you would see much in Europe.
I kept the best for almost last. The exhibits for grizzly and polar bears were great! The Grizzlies were huge and were really showing of. One minor critical thing. Why had the under water view had to be a tunnel per se instead of just a glass panel? It was great to see all the fish next to these great bears though.
And when it was time to go (actually already 30 minutes after closing time, Pomtidomtidom…) and desided to take a fast peek at adventure cove (the themepark corner I had skipped till then all day), I discovered there was a whole building with some very interesting species (some woman’s animal encouter village). This was a very pleasant unforeseen surprise! Columbus Zoo was a very entertaining zoo, that certainly took a full day to discover (Lincoln park Zoo was much smaller and thus took less time to explore).

 

[15399]

And what a pity the part of the walkway with some of the best savannah views is reserved for feeding giraffes. For which you have to pay and does feel a bit like a circus attraction. Is this a typical American thing?

Yes, I think I've been to more giraffe exhibits with a feeding opportunity than without one. Only once have I taken the time to feed the giraffes (at Turtle Back, because the friends I was with wanted to), but it's an option at most zoos I've been to and a good way for the zoo to earn revenue. At Toledo Zoo, it's almost impossible to see half of the Africa exhibit due to the giraffe feeding platform taking up so much of the space!

 

[birdsandbats]

some woman’s animal encouter village

Actually this guy:

Jack Hanna, an important figure in American zoo history.

 

[willem]

Actually this guy:

Jack Hanna, an important figure in American zoo history.

I’m sorry, I really thought it was a woman’s name and didn’t know this man.
In any case, it is new to me that all the buildings are named after people or sponsors. Another big difference between European and American zoos.

 

[JVM]

And what a pity the part of the walkway with some of the best savannah views is reserved for feeding giraffes. For which you have to pay and does feel a bit like a circus attraction. Is this a typical American thing?

Giraffe feeding has become very common in the last decade, or at least with facilities I am interested in, but wasn't very present during my childhood twenty years ago. That said, Columbus is generally known even in American zoochatter circles for leaning into an over-the-top theme park feeling at a pretty atypical level, and the animal exhibits have sometimes been criticized for contributing towards this.

Appreciate the perspective on Columbus -- it's one of the zoos I've not visited but have high on my bucket list.

 

[SwampDonkey]

First, thank you for the review of Columbus, it was really nice to read. I do think the below is a bit overly critical:

. I didnt like the Asian part of Australia & islands much, mostly because of the bad exhibits for the gibbons and orangutans.

"bad exhibits" seems a bit harsh. While not the best examples US zoos can offer, they are not bad, IMO.

 

[birdsandbats]

And what a pity the part of the walkway with some of the best savannah views is reserved for feeding giraffes. For which you have to pay and does feel a bit like a circus attraction. Is this a typical American thing?

This is extremely common. Nearly every American zoo with giraffes has this sort of thing.

 

[willem]

First, thank you for the review of Columbus, it was really nice to read. I do think the below is a bit overly critical:

"bad exhibits" seems a bit harsh. While not the best examples US zoos can offer, they are not bad, IMO.

Ok ok… Maybe you're right, but I found the enormous orangutan enclosure with hardly any climbing equipment and kitchy temple setting anything but impressive. The Gibon enclosure (both inside and on the island) was also much too small.

The next zoo on my trip was the Cincinnati Zoo. A beautiful large full-day zoo with many beautiful enclosures. To start with the negative: I thought the old elephant house was beautiful, but a bit disappointing. In Munich and Budapest, for example, there are similar buildings that I found much more impressive. I also found several cat and primate enclosures to be on the small side.

The Africa part was very beautiful. Just that crazy giraffe feeding again at the best viewing spot, too bad! The large enclosure with the lesser kudus looked beautiful, but as far as I'm concerned, all those clipped birds should no longer be acceptable today. Here too, a beautifully executed optical combination with the lions, not to mention a beautiful hippo enclosure.

I was particularly impressed by the jungle trails. beautiful enclosures for gibbons and bonobos. I thought some net tents for smaller primates werd a bit on the small side. Still, I thought this was a cool part of the zoo, especially because of the variety with indoor enclosures and areas with nocturnal animals. I was also very impressed by the night hunters building.

But the absolute highlight (and in my opinion it should be on the 100 must see exhibits list ), was the Australia part with first the walk-through area with large kangaroos and then the aviary with the Australian ducks and blue penguins: a beautiful exhibit and a beautiful way of presenting!