The term "ABC" was well in-use in the 1940s, so likely has been around at least a century.
Are zebras "ABC" animals?
- Thread starter La Cucaracha
- Start date
The term "ABC" was well in-use in the 1940s, so likely has been around at least a century.
The thread title is "Are zebras ABC animals", it's not a side track. Not quite on the x-ray dish. ABC animals are ones that are popular and easily recognizable, largely because of their feature in ABC and similar children's books. These days anyone can make a video of self-publish a book with a list of species but that doesn't make them "ABC". It's an old term, going back to when it wasn't easy to publish books, when the species were largely the same for each. Polar bears are ABC, even though they're no longer common in zoos, because they were common, were often the P animal, and everyone knows what a polar bear is. Historically, Quail was the Q animal, because of quail hunting. In the USA and UK, I'd say most people still know a quail is a bird, at least, even if they might not fit the full ABC definition now.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Wow, fascinating! What's the commonly accepted X animal?
Also apologies for confusion with thread title. Guess I meant to ask how popular are zebras as zoo animals compared to others. Assumed "ABC" animals were the crowdpleaser animals, as opposed to more obscure animals zoo nerds may like to see.
If you watched nursery rhymes, sometimes they opted for animals that ended with X instead of actual animals that started with X, such as oX and foX. For animals that actually started with X, the most common one usually goes to X-ray tetra, generally named as X-ray fish. Probably due to the interesting overall appearance with its transperent skin that allows us to see its bones. Sometimes, they can also use Xerus, Xenopus frog, Xiphias, Xanthus and Xenops. This is the most common letter that actually uses the species name instead of their common name, definitely because there aren't a lot of words starting with X to begin with.
Me too; although they're apart of the Big 5 in Africa; Buffalo, Lions, Leopards, Elephants and Rhinos.
So although Buffalo's aren't an 'ABC animal' in my opinion, they're still a widely popular species. I wouldn't put it to the point that they're "not well known to the public" - they most certainly aren't. But they're also not at the level of elephants, rhinos, giraffes ect.
From what I've seen in older books (1900-1950ish), if one was given, it was Xerus.
X-ray fish is a fairly recent one.
I always saw X-Ray Fish as the "X" animal as a kid. I remember seeing xenops a few times as well. Xerus is a common one in older books.
I think with some animals it can work both ways.
It is probably something of a stretch to say outright; 'zebras are only popular zoo animals because of their regular appearance in alphabet books'. But I do think it helps quite a bit; and what also helps is that zebras are of relatively easy husbandry. Not to say; easy as in you can train a zebra up to be an effective showhorse very easily; as only ever the most skilled equestrians would intelligently consider using a zebra in such a manner, but from a zoo animal standpoint, they are easy to feed, easy to breed, and easy also to maintain. Grass always helps with [plains] zebras, but as long as the ground substrate is not entirely unreasonable then zebras are largely inconsequential. And it also helps that one species of zebra is an endangered species.
I think also with yaks it is a similar story - they are rather charismatic animals - and also easy-ish to maintain, given your zoo is in proper climactic conditions. Many smaller American zoos and public farms have yaks - and even a handful of larger zoos do as well; though largely because they have nothing better to put in their place. Be it due to lack of interest or lack of success, however, few yaks exist in public collections in the UK, though there is a yak farm in Cheshire.
Several of the other alphabet book classics are a bit of a different story - newts and quails are very common animals in such books; but what it boils down to is that neither are particularly showy or, in public opinion, charismatic. There are some species of newts which are endangered, like Kaiser's Newt, which may gain the interest of zoo directors; though if a zoo decides to have quails at all [the term 'quail' is not even a taxonomic one; the new world 'quails' and old-world 'quails' are not intimately related] they are usually sectioned off into an aviary section where a good fraction of guests won't bother to look. As a fellow 'Q' animal popular in alphabet books, Quetzals would definitely make good display in a zoo - but the most charismatic species, the Resplendent, is protected under US law. Some animals, like whales, are charismatic that they often appear in alphabet books - but the development of better facilities for captive cetaceans is largely throttled by the lengthy phase-out present in several nations.
It is probably something of a stretch to say outright; 'zebras are only popular zoo animals because of their regular appearance in alphabet books'. But I do think it helps quite a bit; and what also helps is that zebras are of relatively easy husbandry. Not to say; easy as in you can train a zebra up to be an effective showhorse very easily; as only ever the most skilled equestrians would intelligently consider using a zebra in such a manner, but from a zoo animal standpoint, they are easy to feed, easy to breed, and easy also to maintain. Grass always helps with [plains] zebras, but as long as the ground substrate is not entirely unreasonable then zebras are largely inconsequential. And it also helps that one species of zebra is an endangered species.
I think also with yaks it is a similar story - they are rather charismatic animals - and also easy-ish to maintain, given your zoo is in proper climactic conditions. Many smaller American zoos and public farms have yaks - and even a handful of larger zoos do as well; though largely because they have nothing better to put in their place. Be it due to lack of interest or lack of success, however, few yaks exist in public collections in the UK, though there is a yak farm in Cheshire.
Several of the other alphabet book classics are a bit of a different story - newts and quails are very common animals in such books; but what it boils down to is that neither are particularly showy or, in public opinion, charismatic. There are some species of newts which are endangered, like Kaiser's Newt, which may gain the interest of zoo directors; though if a zoo decides to have quails at all [the term 'quail' is not even a taxonomic one; the new world 'quails' and old-world 'quails' are not intimately related] they are usually sectioned off into an aviary section where a good fraction of guests won't bother to look. As a fellow 'Q' animal popular in alphabet books, Quetzals would definitely make good display in a zoo - but the most charismatic species, the Resplendent, is protected under US law. Some animals, like whales, are charismatic that they often appear in alphabet books - but the development of better facilities for captive cetaceans is largely throttled by the lengthy phase-out present in several nations.
Antimony96
Well-Known Member
I think the only ungulates that make the label are giraffes, hippos, and rhinos (and technically also cetaceans but you know). Zebras are iconic but almost never a centerpiece or even a particular crowd favorite
For some letters I think in alphabet books there is no one clear 'animal of choice' - in such books P could very well be for polar bear; just as it could very well be for penguin, pig, pigeon, porcupine, or even something like platypus.
I recall in 2014 someone did a sort of 'study' into this sort of thing - possibly not being held to the most desperate scrutiny, 50 books published between 1820 til 2013 were selected so to observe which animals were the most common per letter and by how much.
Predictably, zebras where in 90%, or 45 of the 50 books sampled, with zorille a sorry second. And with P on the other hand, pig was the most common, likely since it's an animal that lives in close proximity to humans often and therefore a more familiar subject than, say a Phalanger or a Ptarmigan. Penguin came in close second, though in the remaining 50 books were 12 other animals.
And does this have any part to play in these animals' popularity in zoos and captivity? Most zoos keep penguins and porcupines largely of their own accord simply for recognisability's sake. Pigs might be found in children's farms or in smaller zoos... and platypus are all but impossible to obtain - though slightly less impossible than 15 years ago, say. So clearly the excuse of being the popular '[letter]' animal doesn't work for everyone. And perhaps it's about as well; given that the most common 'U' animal in said study was unicorn.
That's a long time period to cover, and a small amount of books for such a stretch. The most common/well known species have changed a lot since 1820. A lot of species were unknown to western culture then, and people wouldn't start seeing them in zoos for another 60+ years, bar the few major ones in Europe that existed that long ago. Quail is a good species example. They were one of the most commonly hunted types of animals, a frequent source of food and sometimes raised by people. They don't work well as a farm-raised source of meat, though, and as the various species became more uncommon in the wild (with overhunting being a factor), they've become less well-known as we become generations removed from their heyday. They can still be found as the Q example pretty often, but that's more to do with the lack of options for the letter than with their popularity now.
I think the overall purpose of the alphabet book over the years has remained much the same; the method of teaching children the alphabet by associating familiar concepts; say, ice-cream, apples, trees, zebras, with abstract symbols - so that the symbols themselves appear to be rooted within all that is. Other alphabet books are designed for children who are already confident with their alphabet; but it's just a neat format to keep things organised and interesting.
I found once on the Internet Archive an animal alphabet book published in 1865; and the differences there were interesting to behold.
The book largely skips over the letter X [it uses the term 'xany', meaning 'fool'], meaning that there are only 25 animals in the book. And of these 25 a staggering 21 are animals which would've been in close proximity to the author, presumably from the United Kingdom. Many domesticated; some not. The date is also hot on the trail of when Darwin published his theory of evolution; but the book still remains of a traditional, hierarchial Christian narrative that all animals serve little purpose but to teach humanity.
There is one invertebrate in the book [bee]; and a reptile [viper], as well as a single amphibian [frog] - the rest are mammals and birds [and in one instance, a non-living thing - nest]
If you think how the western world was thinking in 1865 this may well be what a large proportion of people were still thinking. It does not make much effort to portray wild animals except where absolutely necessary letter-wise.
I recall I also found another book from 1868 which is themed around Noah's Ark. It makes some more effort so to include wild animals - so we have elephants, giraffes, camels, lions, tigers, jackals and the like. Still, domestic animals are still prevalent - Noah still has an ox on the Ark for some reason... presumably simply because it starts with O. And interesting archaic terminology can also be found - for 'U', it is 'urchin' - but not in the sense that urchins are largely known today as in sea urchin - but rather referring to a hedgehog. For 'Q' there is Quagga. For obvious reasons today you would be hard-pressed to find quagga in a casual alphabet book.
And so I think there is some observation to be made as to what has changed in this regard in the last 155 or so years. Whenever animals are remotely involved, there is always a focus on domestic animals; something which admittedly has not changed radically. Wild animals are treated in a hierarchial manner - things to be measured, not really so much understood on a deeper level. And strangely in this line of archane understanding, lions are often treated as 'king', tigers often as 'terrible'.
And as well as species not known at time of writing, of which there are quite a few, there are also species that were largely disregarded. One interesting thing is that for whatever you may think of cetacean captivity, it may have been what changed how we view cetaceans today. Before the rise of such establishments, dolphins and whales were seen by many seafarers as inconvenience - orcas were largely menaced. But all it took was a few charismatic performing dolphins and orcas to have the public lighten up to them as animals. Something which, in more recent times, may have folded in on itself.
Birdsage
Well-Known Member
Very interesting! I’d like links to all of these.
Dr. Wolverine
Well-Known Member
I will say in regards to the letter 'X'...
I recall I had a sketchbook when I was young which myself and my mother turned into a sticker book of birds. As a young child I was not big on taxonomy obviously, so the alphabet served itself a neat way to organise things.
So for each page there was a letter; and on that page birds that began with that letter. But sticker-books for realistic birds were hard to come by, so the amount of birds on the page were determined mainly by what was in the sticker books.
Some pages, like the Letter K had quite a lot of birds on them - with a kestrel making an appearance, as well as a kingfisher, knot, killdeer, kakapo ... but the 'I' and 'J' pages prior to later addition had just three birds each from what I recall.
And I did notice that many of the picture-birds were mainly from the British Isles or were easy to access in captivity; many of the 'international' birds were illustration; or sometimes my mother would draw a bird which lacked sticker, as we had a bird encyclopaedia she could use for reference.
And so it was with the letter X, which has, like many other pages, been lost for good. But if memory serves on that page was a Xantus' Murrelet* - which was the only bird in the encyclopaedia that began with an X. I believe the 'U' page had a drawing of an umbrellabird for similar reason.
*Since the encyclopaedia's publishing ornithologists have determined that there are in fact two species of murrelet within the California Current system; Scripps' and Guadalupe. Though I still do call Guadalupe as Xantus' simply because it bears the original scientific name [S. hypoleucus]
I recall I had a sketchbook when I was young which myself and my mother turned into a sticker book of birds. As a young child I was not big on taxonomy obviously, so the alphabet served itself a neat way to organise things.
So for each page there was a letter; and on that page birds that began with that letter. But sticker-books for realistic birds were hard to come by, so the amount of birds on the page were determined mainly by what was in the sticker books.
Some pages, like the Letter K had quite a lot of birds on them - with a kestrel making an appearance, as well as a kingfisher, knot, killdeer, kakapo ... but the 'I' and 'J' pages prior to later addition had just three birds each from what I recall.
And I did notice that many of the picture-birds were mainly from the British Isles or were easy to access in captivity; many of the 'international' birds were illustration; or sometimes my mother would draw a bird which lacked sticker, as we had a bird encyclopaedia she could use for reference.
And so it was with the letter X, which has, like many other pages, been lost for good. But if memory serves on that page was a Xantus' Murrelet* - which was the only bird in the encyclopaedia that began with an X. I believe the 'U' page had a drawing of an umbrellabird for similar reason.
*Since the encyclopaedia's publishing ornithologists have determined that there are in fact two species of murrelet within the California Current system; Scripps' and Guadalupe. Though I still do call Guadalupe as Xantus' simply because it bears the original scientific name [S. hypoleucus]
Attachments
Last edited:
I guess my pedanticism may well be quelled by the news that one major ornithologists' union in America intend on changing the names of every bird species with a human's name...
Something I will say I'm somewhat neutral about... but there will always be some, I think, who will call an Anna's Hummingbird an Anna's Hummingbird.
A sentiment which does not seem to have reached the world of mammalology it would seem - Pere David's Deer, Baird's Tapir and Darwin's Zorro seem safe for the time being...
Birdsage
Well-Known Member
So without Xantus’s Hummingbird, there may end up being no birds with common names that start with X in the Americas (or the world, if and when this movement reaches Africa.)
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Afaik it's birds named after historical figures with associations to slave owning, including John James Audobon who was a slave owner.