The Bronx Zoo does have an aquarium, just not on its campus. The New York Aquarium at Coney Island is owned and operated by the Bronx Zoo's Wildlife Conservation Society. For a short time, the zoo did have a small aquarium on its campus while the aquarium in Battery Park closed and the new one was under construction on Coney Island.
San Diego Zoo List of Species On Exhibit 11-26-13
- Thread starter geomorph
- Start date
uszoo
Well-Known Member
- What really shocks me is that people often people say san diego has the best collection of animals in the nation but the bronx zoo beats them in overall species and every individual category except for birds. The bronx zoo has 707 species according to there last annual report.
Mammals: 169 species
Birds: 266
Reptile: 152
Amphibian: 49
Fish: 43
Invertebrates: 28
In amphibians, fish and inverts; yes I believe Bronx is ahead. But in mammals, birds and reptiles I believe SD is ahead. At virtually all larger zoos, including both SD and Bronx, quite a lot of species are kept off-show. The number provided by geomorph is species on display. The number you provided is total number of species = both species on and off display. If you're interested in total number at various zoos, check the International Zoo Yearbook, 2013, Volume 47, Issue 1. The 2014 edition should be out soon and Dassie rat provided the top-10 for 2011 here.
The diversity in those three groups has always been low/average. Nearby SD Sea World has a quite good marine mammal and penguin collection, but their fish/aquatic invert collection is average. In this context it might be worth adding that Bronx, the other usual contender for "best zoo in the United States", also has relatively few fish (though more than SD Zoo). This is also why a comparison of numbers for Berlin Zoo (has aquarium) vs. SD Zoo makes little sense IMO, but a comparison of Berlin Tierpark (no aquarium) vs. SD Zoo, or for that matter Omaha (has aquarium) vs. Berlin Zoo, arguably do.
Regardless, on my list of zoos, SD is still firmly #1.
Thanks to geomorph for this work. Very interesting to see the changes compared to my last visit. I do look forward to seeing the new Australian section on a future visit, which appears to be a strong contender for best Australian exhibit outside Australia.
Last edited:
@Chlidonias: The lack of an aquarium (building) in most zoos in the United States (in opposite to most European Zoos) is a typical thing and goes back to the early days of zoo history in America. And I guess, we can only speculate about the reason(s). Maybe most zoos doesn't want to invest a huge amount of money (building itself and further maintenance). Maybe there was not that much interest from visitors and/or zoo staff. Maybe they avoid (later) to compete with pure aquariums (We have elephants, they have sharks, both can live with that). Or maybe they had (and sometimes still have?) the opinion, that fishes do not belong to a zoo because zoos are for terrestrial (and amphibious) animals only...
And because you mentioned the age of SDZ and Seaworld: Well, there is another marine life facility in San Diego (La Jolla), the Birch Aquarium at Scripps, that oppened in 1903 already...
The development in this case seems to be different. In general I would say, that in the last 2 or 3 decades the trend in Europe (Oceanographic Valencia, Ozeanarium Lisbon, Aquarium Genua) and Asia (e.g. SEA Aquarium Singapore) was to built new Aquarium-only-buildings. In the US, I couldn't figure out a trend for the same time. You have zoos who extended their fish numbers like Zoo Miami with Amazon and beyond, but you have also complete new Aquariums as in Atlanta and Long Beach.
By the way: A good question is why Taronga Zoo Sydney (your part of the world
) did not rebuilt its aquarium.
@uszoo: Don't forget that Geomorph has only listed animals (and animal signs) he has seen at San Diego Zoo. There might be more.
On the other hand there is no doubt that SDZ has reduced its animal collection, specially the mammal species (thanks to Elephant Odyssey).
@zooboy28: Are there no more Keas at SDZ?
And because you mentioned the age of SDZ and Seaworld: Well, there is another marine life facility in San Diego (La Jolla), the Birch Aquarium at Scripps, that oppened in 1903 already...
The development in this case seems to be different. In general I would say, that in the last 2 or 3 decades the trend in Europe (Oceanographic Valencia, Ozeanarium Lisbon, Aquarium Genua) and Asia (e.g. SEA Aquarium Singapore) was to built new Aquarium-only-buildings. In the US, I couldn't figure out a trend for the same time. You have zoos who extended their fish numbers like Zoo Miami with Amazon and beyond, but you have also complete new Aquariums as in Atlanta and Long Beach.
By the way: A good question is why Taronga Zoo Sydney (your part of the world
) did not rebuilt its aquarium.@uszoo: Don't forget that Geomorph has only listed animals (and animal signs) he has seen at San Diego Zoo. There might be more.
On the other hand there is no doubt that SDZ has reduced its animal collection, specially the mammal species (thanks to Elephant Odyssey).
@zooboy28: Are there no more Keas at SDZ?
sandiegomaster
Well-Known Member
I guess I will weigh in on the aquarium discussion. San Diego Zoo was going to have an aquarium and purchased the Star of India to be an aquarium in the bay but the great depression and World War 2 put the plans on hold. Then the zoo helped create a new museum called the maritime museum and gave them full control of the Star instead of making the aquarium. BTW this museum has one of the finest collection of historic ships and a must stop if you ever find yourself in San Diego, along with the Midway museum. I know it’s a little plug but I have a membership there and think that they are great sites. It is amazing how much great stuff there is to see in San Diego.
But I don’t think the zoo needs an aquarium and here is why.
At Seaworld they have six separate buildings with fish aquariums in it. One of them is being remodeled and renamed octopus gardens. The other five are freshwater fish, sharks, world of oceans and two with rays. They also have several different fish species in different exhibits and stand alone fish tanks in dinning areas.
Then there is Birch aquarium with about 70 different tanks with a wide variety of fish.
Finally there is sealife by legoland with has 41 animal displays.
Assuming that you combine all of these places together with the two zoos, San Diego must have the largest and most diverse collection of animals, although all of these places suffer from a large lack of amphibians and invertebrates.
As far as the zoo collection goes, since the zoo and the safari park are the same entity and animals are constantly being rotated between the two sites, shouldn’t they be counted as one large collection. Someone needs to go out there and get a complete list of all of the animals on display and then we can combine the list and get a total of all animals the zoo displays.
Just imagine if we could obtain a list of all of the animals the zoo owns!
Now for a challenge for everyone, is there anyone brave or crazy enough to make a complete list of their local zoos. I think it would be fun and interesting to see all animal species that are displayed currently in the world. I realize that this takes a lot of hard work but makes for interesting discussions and I appreciate geomorph for creating this list and this discussion.
I have a week off after Christmas and no plans so maybe I will try to do one of the other sites in San Diego if I don’t end up going somewhere. I won a backstage pass for the zoo next weekend so I will give everyone an update on that sometime later this month.
But I don’t think the zoo needs an aquarium and here is why.
At Seaworld they have six separate buildings with fish aquariums in it. One of them is being remodeled and renamed octopus gardens. The other five are freshwater fish, sharks, world of oceans and two with rays. They also have several different fish species in different exhibits and stand alone fish tanks in dinning areas.
Then there is Birch aquarium with about 70 different tanks with a wide variety of fish.
Finally there is sealife by legoland with has 41 animal displays.
Assuming that you combine all of these places together with the two zoos, San Diego must have the largest and most diverse collection of animals, although all of these places suffer from a large lack of amphibians and invertebrates.
As far as the zoo collection goes, since the zoo and the safari park are the same entity and animals are constantly being rotated between the two sites, shouldn’t they be counted as one large collection. Someone needs to go out there and get a complete list of all of the animals on display and then we can combine the list and get a total of all animals the zoo displays.
Just imagine if we could obtain a list of all of the animals the zoo owns!
Now for a challenge for everyone, is there anyone brave or crazy enough to make a complete list of their local zoos. I think it would be fun and interesting to see all animal species that are displayed currently in the world. I realize that this takes a lot of hard work but makes for interesting discussions and I appreciate geomorph for creating this list and this discussion.
I have a week off after Christmas and no plans so maybe I will try to do one of the other sites in San Diego if I don’t end up going somewhere. I won a backstage pass for the zoo next weekend so I will give everyone an update on that sometime later this month.
By the way: A good question is why Taronga Zoo Sydney (your part of the world
Probably a few reasons:
1. not to compete with Sydney Aquarium
2. the zoo is not large enough to support an aquarium while still adding new exhibits (that is why Great Southern Oceans was built right on/next to the old aquarium)
3. the notion that you can see fish at Sydney Aquarium so therefore Taronga does not need to exhibit fish.
I checked today and the bontebok are back in their exhibit but they also have access to the exhibit next door that used to hold the oryx. Both the exhibits have bontebok signs on them so it looks like the oryx are not coming back. No signs for dik-diks either.
I was told by a keeper that there is a "family" of royal antelope off exhibit. She knew of no plans to exhibit them again.
I posted a picture of the adjustments in the gallery.
Things seem to change daily at the San Diego Zoo. I will try to update on this thread if I see any other changes. I printed out your list to save forever. Thank you again for all your work. Bonteboks are beautiful animals indeed.
Lemurs and tamarins are off exhibit. We had kea in the Children's zoo but it was replaced by a horned owl.
WhiteTiger
Active Member
Yeah, this thread is just about the species that are on exhibit, and only at the zoo. San Diego keeps an absolutely enormous amount of species off-display for various reasons and also has its total collection split between the zoo, animal park, SeaWorld, Birch Aquarium at Scripps, US Navy San Diego, and other institutions across the world that it owns or works with (which includes just about every zoological facility in the US and numerous private conservation centers). At the zoo itself, I am aware of over 85 species housed off-display from that list, from large ungulates to insects and amphibians, and that’s only from off the top of my head not knowing the complete extent of the total collection there or off-display at the Wild Animal/Safari Park as well. The off-display areas of San Diego Zoo and the Wild Animal/Safari Park are gigantic and fun to check out when on Google Earth or in person on the Skyfari.
The Avian Propagation Center at the zoo has a couple dozen species of birds not on display. As for amphibians, the zoo maintains a gargantuan collection in breeding labs, though the biggest one is at the Wild Animal/Safari Park. As for invertebrates, the zoo has a very large yet little known entomology department that breeds many rare species, such as my favorite orchid mantis and a large variety of arachnids.
All told, the collection owned by San Diego, as well as the record for highest number of births, species bred, and conservation projects undertaken, is the largest in the world - larger than Berlin or Bronx/WCS NYC (I speak with extensive knowledge of the matter). It is the fact that not all the species are in one place or on display that is deceptive (of course, I wish more were put back on display...). Still, San Diego is universally regarded as the highest standard for zoological institutions by the overwhelming majority of the world and I encourage anyone on this forum who hasn’t been there yet to go to both main parks.
Also, I was recently told that the royal antelope would probably be included in Africa Rocks or if not, moved to one of the smaller hoofstock exhibits next to the dik-dik or rhebok by the Skyfari station at some point (I’m assuming they may be wanting to beef up their population some first).
The Avian Propagation Center at the zoo has a couple dozen species of birds not on display. As for amphibians, the zoo maintains a gargantuan collection in breeding labs, though the biggest one is at the Wild Animal/Safari Park. As for invertebrates, the zoo has a very large yet little known entomology department that breeds many rare species, such as my favorite orchid mantis and a large variety of arachnids.
All told, the collection owned by San Diego, as well as the record for highest number of births, species bred, and conservation projects undertaken, is the largest in the world - larger than Berlin or Bronx/WCS NYC (I speak with extensive knowledge of the matter). It is the fact that not all the species are in one place or on display that is deceptive (of course, I wish more were put back on display...). Still, San Diego is universally regarded as the highest standard for zoological institutions by the overwhelming majority of the world and I encourage anyone on this forum who hasn’t been there yet to go to both main parks.
Also, I was recently told that the royal antelope would probably be included in Africa Rocks or if not, moved to one of the smaller hoofstock exhibits next to the dik-dik or rhebok by the Skyfari station at some point (I’m assuming they may be wanting to beef up their population some first).
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
There are currently lists of exotic mammals, birds and reptiles & amphibians displayed in all New Zealand zoos available in that forum, and a draft exotic mammals list in the Australian forum, with native mammals, and exotic birds and reptiles lists, in the works. Species on display in Europe are available from zootierliste, which is fairly accurate.
However, it would be essentially impossible to do a world list, there is not enough information on species kept in Asian, African and South American zoos available, and collating the lists for North America would be a massive undertaking (although do-able).
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
Would be great if the Zoo built a New Zealand exhibit with these species, and possibly some others that are source-able (geckos, parakeets, waterfowl). Possibly next to the new Australian section. As far as I know, there is not a single dedicated exhibit of multiple New Zealand species outside of NZ, although a few zoos do have multiple NZ species (e.g. Plzen).
arcticwolf
Well-Known Member
I am starting a similar list of species at the Toronto Zoo so be sure to check it out! This is an amazing list by the way and I really enjoyed reading it. There were a lot of interesting species that I had never heard of!
the tuatara at San Diego are the Brothers Islands tuatara which have never been out on display and I really doubt they ever will be. I read in 2004 that a public tuatara house was being planned for these, but obviously that never happened.
It does seem a bit poor (to us especially!) that there are no NZ species on show at San Diego! I mean they've even got kagu on show and that comes from a tiny island no-one has even heard of. Bah!
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
Naultinus, Tukutuku, Hoplodactylus and a few Kea, and I'll be happier than a pig in ****!