Ugly animals in zoos

is this a recycled article? I seem to recall it being on Zoochat before. In any case, they needed "research" to show that zoos keep a lot of attractive animals over less attractive ones? Oh well, I guess it keeps the universities in business.

I do have to pick up on this bit though: "the mammal rated the least attractive, the endangered marsupial mole, not found in any zoo." By what stretch is the marsupial mole considered the most unattractive mammal? And by whom? I can't really imagine the "researchers" interviewing random selections of people and saying "now which mammal do you find most unattractive?" "Well, sir, I really can't stand looking at marsupial moles. What in the name of the devil is that anyway - a beanbag covered in golden plush? Seriously, give me a sick bag."

I'll leave aside the obvious point about why there are no marsupial moles in the world's zoos.
 
I've been trying to find the original research for this article and I can't find anything. Seriously, nothing. Although there was a similar study done at the same university, presumably by the same people, in 2010. That seemed to focus on showing people pictures of parrots and getting them to rate how attractive or ugly they were in relation to one another.

I'm quite interested in knowing how marsupial moles come into it. Obviously if you just show people a bunch of photos of animals and say "which do you find least attractive out of this lot" it's rather, er, unscientific to then claim that marsupial moles are therefore the least attractive mammal.
 
As the article says the Ugly Animal Preservation Society is a comedy act, so I think the whole thing is a joke.
While marsupial moles might be of limited interest to zoos, lots of collections have rat kangaroos (although the ones in the UK usually label them as potoroos) and I reckon they are fairly high on the cuteness scale and definitely far from ugly. I can't imagine that any zoo in the world would not want a pika exhibit - if they could find a way to keep them alive and display their behaviour. Who wouldn't want to see a cute little thing like a rabbit with round ears that makes hay and whistles?

Alan
 
gentle lemur said:
As the article says the Ugly Animal Preservation Society is a comedy act, so I think the whole thing is a joke.
Click to expand...
I was confused by that last paragraph of the article because it didn't seem connected to anything else. It's just sort of sitting there. Maybe it is a joke article.
 
Most animals in zoos are infinitely more attractive than some of the misshapen, knuckle-dragging examples of humanity found in the local supermarket.
 
well, naked mole-rats are reasonably widespread in zoos and their score in ugliness is excellent ;)

The article isn't a joke and it treats a very serious subject, though in a joking fashion with the so-called Ugly Animal Preservation Society. However, the marsupial mole is an very bad example because there's a whole bunch of reasons why it isn't in zoos; it's "beauty" or "ugliness" is definitely secondary.

As anybody working in conservation knows, animals that are perceived as "ugly" or "uninteresting" to most ordinary people just don't stand much of a chance compared to "attractive" or "cute" animals. A basic example are rats and mice where hundreds of species have tiny ranges and are seriously threatened, yet exceedingly few conservation projects aimed at such species exists. Want to start (yet another) conservation project for elephants? -- fairly easy. Want to start something similar for one of the numerous species of mice heading towards extinction? -- good luck, you'll need it. The very reason the "flagship species" concept started.

However, as usual for the media, the news article pushes the border a lot because there definitely is a very large number of "unattractive/boring" animals in zoos. But if you compare any of those "unattractive/boring" species to how many zoos have e.g. Siberian tigers, meerkats or red pandas (all so common in captivity that if half disappeared tomorrow, they would still have decent captive populations) the number is exceedingly small.

Chlidonias said:
I've been trying to find the original research for this article and I can't find anything. Seriously, nothing.
Click to expand...

In addition to the 2010 parrot article:

Maresova; Frynta (2008). Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: the case of boid snakes in Zoos. Ecological Economics 64: 554-558.

Maresova; Krasa; Frynta (2009). We all appreciate the same animals. Ethology 111: 297-300

Frynta; Simkova; Liskova; Landova (2013). Mammalian collection on Noah's Ark: the effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLoS ONE 8

The 2011 book "Are Animals in Zoos Rather Conspicuous Than Endangered?" is also relevant. Despite being a book, the approach and content is similar to a series of scientific articles (unsurprising considering the format it was published in earlier).

In summary, if an animal is big, "cute" and/or colorful, there's a good chance it is in captivity. If an animal is small, "ugly" and with dull colors the chance it is in captivity is much smaller.

While I don't necessarily agree with every conclusion in the above papers and book, the majority is simple logic (in my mind anyway) and I doubt the overall results are a big surprise to anyone. In the end it's basic economics: If a zoo doesn't have at least a few animals that are "attractive/interesting" to ordinary people, few people will visit and the zoo will end up closed.

Zoochat members aren't exactly average zoo visitors: I'm sure I'm not the only one that would walk right past a red panda exhibit to see an exhibit with a rarely kept species of mole-rat :cool:
 
Last edited:
condor said:
The article isn't a joke and it treats a very serious subject, though in a joking fashion with the so-called Ugly Animal Preservation Society.
Click to expand...

I agree that the subject is serious and well worth consideration - but I don't think the article treats it seriously. I still think that this article is a rather half-baked joke.

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top