Here's the thing. I much prefer a random mix of compatible animals with no attempt to present it as a geographical exhibit, to a generic "African Savannah" exhibit that mixes animals from opposite ends of the continent implying that they all live in the same place in the wild.
I'd totally agree - I wouldn't call foul on an exhibit like this unless is was being called 'Pampas: Sea of Grasses' or some other equally pretentious name implying a geographic basis (which it's not). But it did put me in mind of certain discussions on here!
I don't know if I like having animals from four different continents mixed together for no particular reason. I also share your dislike of animals that do not have overlapping ranges being in mixed exhibits... but maybe it's less of a problem here in Australia, because I can think of only one example of it happening (Mogo, which has scimitar-horned oryx with giraffe, zebra and ostrich).
I don't know if I like having animals from four different continents mixed together for no particular reason. I also share your dislike of animals that do not have overlapping ranges being in mixed exhibits... but maybe it's less of a problem here in Australia, because I can think of only one example of it happening (Mogo, which has scimitar-horned oryx with giraffe, zebra and ostrich).
I only dislike it if the exhibit name or design implies a shared geographic origin that isn't there - like the proposed Serengeti exhibit at Chessington, which will apparently be home to Grevy's Zebra, Sitatunga and Scimitar-horned Oryx (!).
In this case I don't mind at all - the animals mix well, there's no attempt to suggest these animals come from the same place (their respective ranges are clearly shown on the labels) - I'm happy.
