Are monkeys zoo superstars or supporting players?

DavidBrown

DavidBrown

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
We've had some discussions in the past about what animals are zoo superstar species that zoos design new exhibit capital and marketing campaigns around and that the public really wants to see.

I'm curious what the opinions here and what the empirical data suggests about the status of monkey species as potential superstars.

Monkeys seem to be universally loved and at least one species seems to be present at most zoos, but are they true superstars that the public expects and demands to see?

The San Diego Zoo features several monkey species in its "Lost Forest" complex, but there are several other prominent species in there as well like pygmy hippos, crocodiles, and (originally) clouded leopards. Many rain forest exhibits (most? all?) feature some kind of monkey species. It seems rare though that one sees monkeys as the main "stars of the show". An exception that comes to mind are the new snow monkey exhibits being designed and built for the Lincoln Park and Minnesota Zoos.

I'd be interested in any opinions that people have on this topic.
 
Monkeys seem to be to be supporting players. People like to see them in zoos, but to the average zoogoer a monkey is a monkey is a monkey. I think gorillas are probably more superstars than monkeys.
 
Depends on the monkey species, behaviour, activity of individuals, display to visitor (walk-through exhibit, public feeding) and the species collection in general. In a small zoo without any more popular species they might be more prominent..
 
Apenheul in Netherlands has almost only monkeys and apes and they manage to attract almost 500.000 visitors per year and the park is perceived as a "monkey zoo" so visitors really go there to see monkeys. So when presented well I believe monkeys can be superstarspecies, but to be fair most zoos fail in presenting them in the right way.
 
Pertinax said:
IMO Great Apes( all four) are Superstars, all other Monkeys are supporting players.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. The great apes are the superstars, they always appear to draw crowds and from standing for a while and listening to what other visitors say about them people really do seem to connect with them.

The smaller primates i find are interesting due to the fact that they tend to move around more but they still don't seem to have the pull of the great apes.
 
When I visited Strasbourg Zoo, I thought that the most interesting animals were the Tonkean macaques, a species I hadn't seen before. I could work out the relative ranking in the hierarchy due to the way the monkeys interacted. I also saw the species the following day at the Mulhouse Zoo, but the exhibit was less interesting.

One of the most interesting animal houses I've ever visited was the saki and uakari house at Cologne Zoo in 1982 - white, red and black-headed uakaris, monk saki, black and white-nosed bearded sakis. I doubt if I'll ever see such a collection again.
 
I think some monkeys can be stars, although it requires the right exhibition of them to a large degree. If any were to be "superstars" it would be the following:
-Large social groups of baboons and macaques can be very interesting to watch, and can hold large numbers of visitor's interest for quite a while.
-Walk-through lemur exhibits are very engaging and seem to be becoming more common, ring-tail lemurs are definitely public favourites.
-Particularly active or vocal species - such as gibbons, can be favourites and crowd attractors, as people often flock to see what all the noise is about.
-Certain monkeys can also be superstars if they are particularly unusual, for example proboscis monkeys.

But most monkeys are displayed next to other monkeys, and in similar exhibits, which greatly reduces their individual species appeal. To make a monkey a superstar, its most interesting features need to be properly showcased, which is what the best monkey exhibits do.
 
I agree with whats been previously said, what can make or break the attraction of smaller monkeys are how they are displayed, many places tend to put a lot of smaller monkeys beside each other in similar enclosures which comes across to the visitors that they are like the enclosures, all the same.

When I visited Twycross late last year, it really gave me the perspective of how different they can look and behave and how each species has its own identity and not just "another monkey" even though the indoor areas were quite similar.
Which makes me think that it also depends on the visitors themselves, if they haven't got any interest in monkeys, then they will all look the same to them, where as anyone that has got an interest in them can stand for ages just watching the same species and individuals in the group, before moving on to the next.
 
It depends on the type(s) of monkey(s), the other animals at the zoo and the ways they are displayed.
A nice social group of large monkeys will always attract attention, particularly if they are active and spectacular in appearance - mandrills and proboscis monkeys spring to mind. They are stars.
The smaller monkeys cannot really compete, but the spectacular colour of golden lion tamarins does attract attention, although they would only be superstars in a collection of smaller species.
The one area where some monkeys beat almost all other mammals is sound: howler monkeys have to be seen if they are howling and gibbons do the same when they call (even if they not strictly monkeys). Only chimps, elephants, big cats and perhaps sea lions and giant otters can come close - and they are all stars too of course.

Alan
 
Eh, I think monkeys are generally supporting players. People like them and watch them, but they're not usually the primary attraction to any given zoo. But monkeys, especially in groups, are usually active and doing something interesting, so always fun to watch.

Now, great apes? Gorillas, definitely, chimps, maybe.
 
I agree with two of Batto's primary points; it depends on what species of monkey is being held, and what other species of animals are being displayed around the monkeys.
For example, a Japanese Macaque exhibit will gain much more attention than a Marmoset enclosure.
In addition, the Bronx Zoo has five species of monkeys in their Congo Gorilla Forest, but the gorillas will always be more popular. But in my hometown zoo of Beardsley, sakis and howler monkeys are surrounded by a generally inactive ocelot, and a small group of vampire bats. These monkeys easily garner more attention than the other animals (unless the ocelot is awake), but they fail to get as much attention as the Golden-Lion Tamarins, due to these smaller monkeys being more active.
Overall, a monkey's superstar status relies on a well-done and easily viewable enclosure, its neighbors, and how active the monkeys are.
 
BeardsleyZooFan said:
Overall, a monkey's superstar status relies on a well-done and easily viewable enclosure, its neighbors, and how active the monkeys are.
Click to expand...

London exhibit a group of White-naped Mangabeys in a fairly spacious modern(the outdoors) enclosure adjacent to the gorillas in the 'Gorilla Kingdom' area. The Gorilla group is very small(1.3 adults) with currently no juveniles or babies in the group, so consequently relatively inactive. They are still the big draw of course, but the larger and socially active Mangabey group just across the way are, at least at present, IMO, the superior display.
 
Last edited:
I would certainly agree with that, Pertinax, especially when one considers that mangabeys are quite unusual in captivity, a very active group of primates, and tend towards being pretty eye-catching in appearance :)
 
Mangabeys are great,;) a 'classic' group of old world Monkeys and as you say, not frequently seen. I love the look of them and the calls they make.:) Fortunately in the UK & Eire they've had something of a revival of late- there was a time circa 1980-90's era when there were virtually none around- now there are White-naped breeding groups at London and Dublin and a smaller one at Flamingo Park, Cherry-crowned groups at Paignton and Colchester, the old pair of Golden-bellies at Port Lympne, and Fota now also have a group though I am unsure which species (not Cherry-crowned).
 
Fota has Grey-cheeked Mangabey (Lophocebus albigena) - it is just a shame that the Sooty Mangabeys which were around in the 1990's and early 2000's have all died out.

There is one other mangabey taxon in the UK of course; the Black Crested Mangabey (Lophocebus aterrimus) at the Welsh place.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Fota has Grey-cheeked Mangabey (Lophocebus albigena) - it is just a shame that the Sooty Mangabeys which were around in the 1990's and early 2000's have all died out.

There is one other mangabey taxon in the UK of course; the Black Crested Mangabey (Lophocebus aterrimus) at the Welsh place.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirmation of Fota group species. I forgot the Black Mangabey at the 'Welsh place'. During the 80'/90's era- when strangely other Mangabeys were at an all- time low in UK, there were two groups of these in UK- Colchester and Bristol both had them though I believe this one isn't from either of those groups but one of two males that came there from Europe..

I believe the Sooty and Cherry crowned are subspecies or races of a single species, but I agree its a pity no one has the Sooty nowadays.
 
Pertinax said:
I believe the Sooty and Cherry crowned are subspecies or races of a single species, but I agree its a pity no one has the Sooty nowadays.
Click to expand...

A common misconception, borne of the fact that the Cherry-crowned Mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) found at Paignton and Colchester is sometimes called the White-collared Mangabey - this leads to confusion with the White-naped Mangabey (Cercocebus atys lunulatus) which is found at Flamingoland and London, and *is* currently classified as the sister subspecies of the Sooty Mangabey (Cercocebus atys atys).

However, some authorities do suggest looking further into the level of distinction between C.a.lunulatus and C.a.atys, believing the two may merit specific seperation.
 
My impression actually is that they are "de facto" superstars. They may not be the animals that people are most excited about seeing when they go to the zoos (I guess elephants, lions and tigers take the first place), but they tend to be the animals that people watch the longest, because they simply have the most "interesting" behavior from the average guest's point of view.
That is, they are usually active, and they display behavior that we can identify with (they play, interact with each others and do lots of different things instead of just sauntering around eating like many other mammals tend to do).

However, if the zoo ALSO has active great apes, then the monkeys (and gibbons) get demoted to supporting players.

But in several tiny zoos, which don't have the room for most ABC's, monkeys seem to be both de facto and official superstars. Often along with *drumming sound* meerkats and ring-tailed lemurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top