Wilhelma Zoo Wilhelma zoo, Stuttgart

lintworm said:
That is a mistranslation. The wombat family is also known as Plumpbeutler in Germany, which means as much as plump (as in lumpy) marsupials.
Click to expand...
I thought it sounded peculiar.

This is the passage from the link:
Wegen ihres gedrungenen Aussehens, das die Verwandtschaft mit den Kängurus kaum erahnen lässt, tragen Wombats in unserer Sprache den wenig schmeichelhaften Namen Plumpbeutler – mit den kurzen Beinen und dem Stummelschwänzchen sehen sie ein bisschen aus wie kleine Bären.

When I put the whole thing into Google translate it came up with the word "squatters" rather than "slugs". When I tried just the word Plumpbeutler by itself the computer just scratched its head and said Plumpbeutler back.
 
According to Zootierliste, Wilhelma now has Rock Pratincoles (Glareola nuchalis) on display, "seen and signed" .
This species is otherwise currently only housed at Weltvogelpark Walsrode, and historically, it was only found in Tropical Bird Gardens (UK) around 1972.

I haven't seen any photos of them yet, but I assume they belong to the same subspecies as those in Weltvogelpark Walsrode, G. n. liberia.
 
The whole group of Javan lutung left for Lodz Zoo, which means this species is now gone from Germany. I am afraid this will mean that this iconic building with the unique gibbon enclosure will be demolished in the near future, as it is in need of renovation (e.g. the bridge hasn't been accessible for quite some time). That would be an immense pity as this design should be declared a monument in my opinion.
 
If the building would be destroyed, I wonder what this space could be used for apart from rehousing gibbons. Maybe extending the spider monkey exhibit?
 
Cat-Man said:
Does anybody have any photos of the building and enclosure?
Click to expand...

Here's one of mine from 2015:

full
 
lintworm said:
The whole group of Javan lutung left for Lodz Zoo, which means this species is now gone from Germany. I am afraid this will mean that this iconic building with the unique gibbon enclosure will be demolished in the near future, as it is in need of renovation (e.g. the bridge hasn't been accessible for quite some time). That would be an immense pity as this design should be declared a monument in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The gibbon house a eye sore. It is not suitible for modern animal welfare, it is objectivily a ugly building, a remenent of a time were animals were to be presented, with little care for their husbandary needs. The only reason not to tear it down mybe like many older exhibit, like thesmal carnovore cages to remind people how Zoos moved away from these harmfull ideas. But nobody would miss the concrete monstrosity.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
The gibbon house a eye sore. It is not suitible for modern animal welfare, it is objectivily a ugly building, a remenent of a time were animals were to be presented, with little care for their husbandary needs. The only reason not to tear it down mybe like many older exhibit, like thesmal carnovore cages to remind people how Zoos moved away from these harmfull ideas. But nobody would miss the concrete monstrosity.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's definitely an ugly eyesore, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the gibbon house otherwise; I summed up my opinions about it in @lintworm 's excellent thread about must-see zoo exhibits, so I will merely quote myself rather than try to re-word:

TeaLovingDave said:
despite how stark and brutalist it looks, I think it is superior to many gibbon exhibits built more recently - or even in the present day!
Click to expand...

TeaLovingDave said:
there are most certainly many gibbon exhibits in Europe which *are* superior to the Wilhelma example - my point is that there are *many* gibbon exhibits which are a lot younger and (superficially) more naturalistic which are worse than the Wilhelma example. Naturalistic appearance cannot be taken as a substitute for actual quality as an enclosure for the species in question, which some exhibits unfortunately seem to do.
Click to expand...

As regards my latter quote, it provides/provided a lot more scope for movement and activity than the vast majority of exhibits built at the time - and is also superior to the "gibbon island with a bunch of vegetation but only a short, stubby climbing frame connected to indoor housing by a rope" cliche which is often seen these days!
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
The gibbon house a eye sore. It is not suitible for modern animal welfare, it is objectivily a ugly building, a remenent of a time were animals were to be presented, with little care for their husbandary needs. The only reason not to tear it down mybe like many older exhibit, like thesmal carnovore cages to remind people how Zoos moved away from these harmfull ideas. But nobody would miss the concrete monstrosity.
Click to expand...

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. As @TeaLovingDave mentioned it is far superior to many newer gibbon exhibits from a gibbon perspective. I don't think this cage could hold gibbons long term, but for smaller arboreal species it could be fantastic.

But this is a very fitting monument that shows how they have tried to distill the essence of an animal's natural habitat into something fitting for the time, while still making sure the public got a good close-up view of the animals. It is one of the smartest building from that time period and it is one-of-a-kind. I don't think many would be sad to see the tapir, elephant and cat houses from Wilhelma being demolished (me included), but this cage is something else.
 
zoomaniac said:
"New" in this case means that they keep this (Sub-)Species again after a break of about 3 years...

By the way: Interesting to see the change in taxonomy: So "saxicolor" is now "tulliana"
Click to expand...
I would take tulliana with a pinch of salt. Saxicolor has a wide range of distribution across Caucasus and Iran.

Tulliana was always used for Anatolian leopard.., the species had been absent from Turkey for a long time (and only recently re-appeared from the East).
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I would take tulliana with a pinch of salt. Saxicolor has a wide range of distribution across Caucasus and Iran.

Tulliana was always used for Anatolian leopard.., the species had been absent from Turkey for a long time (and only recently re-appeared from the East).
Click to expand...
Are those really tulliana or saxicolor which reached near Turkey?
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I would take tulliana with a pinch of salt. Saxicolor has a wide range of distribution across Caucasus and Iran.

Tulliana was always used for Anatolian leopard.., the species had been absent from Turkey for a long time (and only recently re-appeared from the East).
Click to expand...

PossumRoach said:
Are those really tulliana or saxicolor which reached near Turkey?
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes tulliana and saxicolor are now all subsumed into the same subspecies (tulliana). Persian leopard taxonomy was formerly a very messy affair, now it is much more straightforward formally. The choice to put them all under tulliana is nothing to do with the relative ranges of previously recognised subspecies but rather that the first described Persian leopard was placed under tulliana. There isn't currently evidence that tulliana and saxicolor are significantly different to be considered separate subspecies (or at least I haven't seen anything convincing). Either way, leopard taxonomy is always unbearably messy and ever-changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top