I really liked this sign. It gives not only information about the specific individuals at the zoo but also details of the enclosure itself. Not a common thing to see.
Yes, an excellent sign. I also very much applaud the lack of anthropomorphic names for the two birds: just "male" and "female" rather than, say, "Nigel" and "Doris".
I don't mind zoos using names. I'm not a sentimental person myself, so I don't really care if an animal is named Babadook or whatever, but it does create an attachment to your regular visitor better which probably helps them remember whatever aspects you're trying to get across, after they have left the zoo.
@Chlidonias Of course I give my dog a name (he's named after a favourite singer) and I don't object to animals in zoos having 'human' names per se, except that (and I realise these two points contradict each other!):
there's something hugely incongruous about having, say, a giant otter called "Kevin". It just seems wrong!
the trend to having "suitable" names, linked to an animal's homeland, can be cringe-makingly awful in their well-meaning but flawed attempts to utilise local languages ("she is named Bahati, which in the African language means 'she who provides blessings to those around her'") or woefully unimaginative (kookaburras named "Bruce" and "Sheila")
