animal explorer
Active Member
Which design of those do you prepfer to see on a zoo? please explain why you chose that.
Zoo Sections
- Thread starter animal explorer
- Start date
Same for me
animal explorer
Active Member
yes but there are animals that live in many continents ... what happens there ? in wich contnent should the animal be ?
I'd like zoos to have sections that show how animals adapt to different conditions. There could be an aviary for gliding animals or perhaps a section showing convergent evolution e.g. having an aye-aye and a striped possum next to each other. I quite liked the underground section at Dresden Zoo, which exhibited earthworms and other burrowing animals.
I liked the concept of the Micrarium at the Paris Menagerie. I've only ever seen a few phyla at zoos and I'd hope that people seeing greatly magnified living animals could become interested in the vast range of animal life.
I liked the concept of the Micrarium at the Paris Menagerie. I've only ever seen a few phyla at zoos and I'd hope that people seeing greatly magnified living animals could become interested in the vast range of animal life.
I think the placement of those animals should be done based on the zoos personal choice or space availability. You can always make mention of alternative locations for the animal in signage. The multi continent animals' location could also be decided by the actual place of origin of the animals. You have Arctic Wolves from the Yukon, Canada then it makes sense to put them in the North American arctic section. You could go by where the species is most abundant. Theres tons of options. It's ultimately up to the zoo.
I just don't find grouping animals by primates, felines, reptiles ect. works for me. Nothing wrong with it I just prefer a combination of the other two styles, probably because that is how my own home town zoo is organized.
Thats the great thing about zoos, you can organize them so many different ways. It makes them all unique and interesting. Boy if they were all the same that would be depressingly boring.
animal explorer
Active Member
Yes it would be definetly . I have the oposite problem with you . My home zoo is organised according to species ( for example big cats , reptilehouse , monkey forest etc.) so i like more that style . in my opinion the only disadvantage of this is that it might be boring for visitors to see only birds or reptiles for example for long time .
Being a traditionalist I like to see sections, and especially houses, devoted to birds, big cats, primates etc - not that I see many places like that any more. I am still grumbling about the demolition of the Bird Walk at Flamingo Land ahead of the 2008 season.
I prefer geographic organizations of animals or by habitat. I'm not a big fan of taxonomic arrangements although that can be good if done right. For example, I would hate to see the aviary in Omaha go and the aviary and reptile house in Detroit are also nice.
I voted for the second. I far prefer taxonomic divisions, but for purely selfish reasons. I am a cat fanatic and I like to have all the cats together so if I am photographing one type, another is nearby to keep an eye on. I do not have to worry if I am missing some good shots of another cat in another part of the zoo.
However, I realize this style is out of vogue and has already disappeared from most zoos.
However, I realize this style is out of vogue and has already disappeared from most zoos.
The main zoo that does this is Philly and not all exhibits follow this
Yes I love Big Cat Falls at Philadelphia. Also love Big Cat Country at Memphis.
I'd like to see some more geographic-habitat work besides 'African Savannah'. Most expansive African habitats seem to focus purely on different Savannah animals, and it's a shame because so many other habitats get overlooked. I don't think I've ever seen a good exhibit dedicated to highland creatures and with all the endangered animals from northern Asia, that habitat also seems poorly represented in terms of larger exhibits. Obviously I'm a novice zoo-goer but dang.
I think taxonomic exhibits could still work, perhaps with emphasis placed on how each species is different and adapted to it's environment. Good way to discuss and talk about evolution. Sometimes I really enjoy seeing two related species nearby one another, like how Brookfield Zoo has a sign about telling the difference between Grevy's and Plains Zebras (though the plains zebras are gone) and one about the differences between Brazilian tapis and Baird's tapirs, and often when taxonomic exhibits go, only one or two 'flagship species' remains unless we're talking about primates or birds.
I'm not a huge fan of showcasing animals from the same habitat but different parts of the world together either. I forgive Lincoln Park Zoo for having African penguins by the Polar bears purely because of the space related issues. Wouldn't let that fly at a larger zoo like Brookfield.
I think taxonomic exhibits could still work, perhaps with emphasis placed on how each species is different and adapted to it's environment. Good way to discuss and talk about evolution. Sometimes I really enjoy seeing two related species nearby one another, like how Brookfield Zoo has a sign about telling the difference between Grevy's and Plains Zebras (though the plains zebras are gone) and one about the differences between Brazilian tapis and Baird's tapirs, and often when taxonomic exhibits go, only one or two 'flagship species' remains unless we're talking about primates or birds.
I'm not a huge fan of showcasing animals from the same habitat but different parts of the world together either. I forgive Lincoln Park Zoo for having African penguins by the Polar bears purely because of the space related issues. Wouldn't let that fly at a larger zoo like Brookfield.
cloudedleopard
Well-Known Member
Cleveland is a mix of all three and then some...
African Savanna and Australian Adventure. Zoogeographic.
The Rainforest. By biome.
Primate, Cat, and Aquatics. Taxonomic.
"Northern Trek"- a mishmosh because some of the species aren't northern, ahem, the Persian onagers and the Malayan sun bears...
Waterfowl Lake. Nothing.
African Savanna and Australian Adventure. Zoogeographic.
The Rainforest. By biome.
Primate, Cat, and Aquatics. Taxonomic.
"Northern Trek"- a mishmosh because some of the species aren't northern, ahem, the Persian onagers and the Malayan sun bears...
Waterfowl Lake. Nothing.
There cannot be a single perfect answer to this question. But I think environmental sections are usually the best choice. In designing any exhibit for a number of species, whether held in the same space or in neighbouring ones, it is easier to design, build and manage if they all have the same environmental conditions. This is as true for a 10 hectare outdoor area as it is a pair of small fish tanks. The priority for any zoo design team must be to produce a suitable environment for the animals.
It also allows for interesting educational comparisons and contrasts eg wallabies, duikers and pudu or hummingbirds and sunbirds.
Alan
It also allows for interesting educational comparisons and contrasts eg wallabies, duikers and pudu or hummingbirds and sunbirds.
Alan
I'd have to agree. I think this way would offer the most ideas for exhibit design as well. Taxonomically can be cool in certain situations but I'd still prefer it to be done geographically when possible.