does it seem like the exhibit area will actually end up looking like a forest once established, or is the name a bit of a joke? I see they have planted the islands, and I can make out fan palms, some shrubs that look like Fatsia, and even a tree fern or two (do they even grow in this part of England?), but it seems like the islands will still always remain poles and ropes with a few struggling plants underneath.
I would have called it Gibbonpalooza or Great Gibbons! or something equally stupid
Twycross is still quite a bare site, like an open field with very little planting- despite being fifty or more years old. So I imagine this new build will still look quite bare in years to come with the poles etc still being the most prominent feature. IMO the best thing to plant on these outdoor islands would be Willow trees as they grow fast. I also expect the whole thing to be much smaller in reality than it appears from all these photos, as they always have the effect(not deliberate) of 'stretching' the distances. I expect to visit in a couple of months to see for myself.
Descriptive habitat names like 'Plains' or 'Forest' as names for zoo exhibits are everywhere nowadays and invariably a bit of a joke IMO. I don't know why so many follow this trend though- unless it can really be an accurate description, which it hardly ever is.
I think this style of planting for primates, with a mixture of shrubs including plenty of evergreens planted under a structure of poles and webbing straps, is becoming the norm in the UK. Most of Chester's primate exhibits are like this and Paignton is moving in a similar direction. It does look very bare now, but in 20 years time it will look much more like a forest, with a bit of luck. The Chusan palms (rather than tree ferns) should be quite impressive by that time. However I agree with Pertinax that a couple of fast growing willows on each island would help in the short term, although they would look bare in the winter.
Descriptive habitat names like 'Plains' or 'Forest' as names for zoo exhibits are everywhere nowadays and invariably a bit of a joke IMO. I don't know why so many follow this trend though- unless it can really be an accurate description, which it hardly ever is.
I think the biggest thing is that it just makes the exhibits sound more impressive/interesting to non-zoo people. Even if it isn't a forest, subconsciously I think gibbon forest sounds more exciting than gibbon house does. If it draws in extra visitors, let the silly names stay
I think the biggest thing is that it just makes the exhibits sound more impressive/interesting to non-zoo people. Even if it isn't a forest, subconsciously I think gibbon forest sounds more exciting than gibbon house does.
That is obviously why its done, yes. To me though it usually highlights how far removed from the real thing the named exhibit really is. Colchester's Orangutan exhibit particularly springs to mind.
