Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
As a result of the film marmots might become the "new meerkat" in zoos , oh wait...bubonic plague resorvoirs...bad idea.
Barbary Macaques - are they becoming the new Meerkats
- Thread starter garyjp
- Start date
As a result of the film marmots might become the "new meerkat" in zoos , oh wait...bubonic plague resorvoirs...bad idea.
I would watch it, but I think a Pixar short with no voices would be better. Something like this short about Sanderlings:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I think that would ruin the effect, I would really like to hear Eddie murphy voice the character of a foul mouthed Bactrian camel, Micheal Caine / Tom Hardy (or indeed any British actor) the evil wolf, and Scarlett Johanson the femme fatale pallas cat love interest.
I always remembered the cat as a European wildcat. Regardless KO a great book our society has terribly neglected. It probably would have gotten a sequel if it wasn’t neglected. For shame.
That sounds like Larrykins which had a bilby and Hugh Jackman as a buff red kangaroo. Knowing how Dreamworks+Universal just canned the Larrykins while it was being made (probably over minion garbage) plus Disney’s utter lack of originality, that idea sadly wouldn’t fly.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I know it wouldn't, I was just being sarcastic about the whole thing
.I hate to be a grinch but I'm not a fan of Disney though I absolutely love and respect their conservation fund for nature programe for pragmatic real-world conservation reasons as it has been a lifeline for many in-situ projects in need.
Last edited:
I'm a complete layman, granted, but this honestly sounds EAZA is forgoing the "education" aspect of zoos. Zoos are not just breeding centres, they are also living museums that you can visit to learn about wildlife. There are plenty of non-endangered animals that have interesting stories to tell, for example the Japanese macaques bathing in hot springs and the roles of rhesus macaques in research. Of course we should still ensure that the three mentioned macaque species have self-sustaining breeding populations, but isn't there space for both things?
I think it'll really be a shame if we lose such common and iconic species like Japanese macaques, crab-eating macaques and rhesus macaques. Some of the other macaque species like bear and Tonkean may have too small captive populations to survive in the long run no matter what, though.
I have actually checked Zootierliste sometimes and wondered why so relatively few of the major European zoos keep those species. Now I know why.
Iirc Space farms has one in a very atrocious enclosure. Being a primate and not wanted by the AZA there's fat chance they would be any new imports.
I find it quite concerning how all but three macaques are on the phase-out list, especially in light of the 2020 updates to the IUCN red list. The Sunda pig-tailed macaque is now listed as Endangered (same extinction risk as the lion-tailed and Barbary macaques) and even the crab-eating macaque has been uplisted to Vulnerable.
I would hope a change in policy comes for those two species at least, considering they still both seem to have sizeable captive representation in Europe (38 collections listed on Zootierliste for Sunda pig-tailed, 64 for crab-eating). It would be a disaster if it was decided later on that captive breeding was needed, after their numbers had started to dwindle in Europe.
The pig-tailed macaque could be another good flagship species for the impacts of oil palm-driven deforestation (and doubtlessly less expensive to house than the orangutan, the primary flagship species) while the crab-eating macaque is an ideal representative of threatened mangrove habitats.
I would hope a change in policy comes for those two species at least, considering they still both seem to have sizeable captive representation in Europe (38 collections listed on Zootierliste for Sunda pig-tailed, 64 for crab-eating). It would be a disaster if it was decided later on that captive breeding was needed, after their numbers had started to dwindle in Europe.
The pig-tailed macaque could be another good flagship species for the impacts of oil palm-driven deforestation (and doubtlessly less expensive to house than the orangutan, the primary flagship species) while the crab-eating macaque is an ideal representative of threatened mangrove habitats.
I don't think so.
Whose phase-out list is this, the EAZA? What species are recommended for keeping and phaseout?
Per the information posted above by @Andrew Swales :
EAZA has all species of Macaque listed for 'phasing out' - excepting only Barbary, Lion-tailed and Celebes Black
Which, in terms of the species kept in Europe and not on that list, means the following are to be phased out (although it should be noted some of these are only kept in non-EAZA collections in any case):
Macaca arctoides - 12 current holders
Macaca assamensis - 2 current holders
Macaca fascicularis - 60 current holders
Macaca fuscata - 72 current holders
Macaca hecki - 1 current holder
Macaca leonina - 2 current holders
Macaca maura - 6 current holders
Macaca mulatta - 69 current holders
Macaca nemestrina - 34 current holders
Macaca radiata - 8 current holders
Macaca sinica - 3 current holders
Macaca tonkeana - 6 current holders
Thanks, I see my mistake now; scrolled back some, but not all the way back to the first page
Some of those species are still held by quite a few facilities - and Crab-Eating Macaques and Japanese Macaques in particular seem like species with high exhibit potential and visitor appeal (although in the latter case I base that on their adaptations to temperate climates, which in Europe may also be a niche fulfilled by Barbary Macaques? Not sure how cold tolerant they are). Not to mention many of these currently existing species are vulnerable or endangered.
Is it a problem of genetics or institutional space?
I just googled a few EAZA reports, and while I generally commend their work, they do seem overly focused on breeding endangered species, often to the detriment of the aforementioned educational aspect. Surely it would be a good thing to have the natural world represented as widely as possible to help people see its wonder and care about saving it?
Not to mention, no one can see 20 years into the future. Maybe Japanese macaques badly need help by then, but too bad, we had a perfectly good ex-situ population that we gave up on because they were too damn common. (Okay, I know I'm overdramatizing a bit, but I hope you get my point)
Not to mention, no one can see 20 years into the future. Maybe Japanese macaques badly need help by then, but too bad, we had a perfectly good ex-situ population that we gave up on because they were too damn common. (Okay, I know I'm overdramatizing a bit, but I hope you get my point)
Why would you phase out Macaca nemestrina. It is a endangred species with a large captive population
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if this question is directed at TLD or myself, but perhaps you should have used they rather than you...?
You aren’t overdramatizing imo. Reeves muntjac are a good example. They are slowly getting endangered.
Zoo populations, at least when it comes to larger mammals, are absurdly small from a population genetics perspective. To understand why, we need to understand the concept of effective population sizes. Without going into too much detail, the effective population size is a measure for how quickly a population loses genetic variation. Genetic variation is crucial if you want to keep your populations healthy, and pivotal if you ever get to reintroduction. It is generally accepted as a rule of thumb that you need an effective population size of 100 individuals just to avoid inbreeding. That seems reasonable, until you know that effective sizes are generally (far) lower than census sizes. How much depends on the species, but a ratio of effective size:census size of 1:10 is far from unthinkable. Then you'd need a thousand individuals. Much less reasonable. Furthermore, to preserve evolutionary potential, estimations of necessary effective population sizes range from 500 to 5000. Absurd numbers for zoo populations of medium sized or large mammals.
Luckily, careful management can close the gap between census size and effective size (at least partly), but even then the numbers are very high. If zoos are really serious about putting conservation first, then the only logical solution is to use the limited capacity to keep sustainable population of a handful of species, instead of keeping many more species which are hardly viable. Yes, sometimes very inbred small populations persevere, but those species are crippled for millennia to come. There are good and valid discussions to be had on why they decided to only preserve three species instead or four, or why they chose lion-tailed instead of southern pig-tailed, and if they should have chosen a species based on education, but it doesn't undermine the general idea that zoos should be serious about which macaques they want to perserve for the future.
It is true that there's a good chance that a species phased out now will be endangered a few decades into the future. But the species they choose are already in danger now, and there's no reason to assume they'll be out of danger in a few decades. Hard choices have to be made, but I'd rather have three healthy macaque populations than eight struggling ones. It is an illusion to think zoos can keep viable population of all macaque species now found in Europe. At this moment, EAZA can still decide which species they want to keep, and have the option to go for ones they know can benefit from ex-situ conservation. The stakes are simply too high to just let go and let random events and the interests of individual zoos decide which species make it and which don't.
Luckily, careful management can close the gap between census size and effective size (at least partly), but even then the numbers are very high. If zoos are really serious about putting conservation first, then the only logical solution is to use the limited capacity to keep sustainable population of a handful of species, instead of keeping many more species which are hardly viable. Yes, sometimes very inbred small populations persevere, but those species are crippled for millennia to come. There are good and valid discussions to be had on why they decided to only preserve three species instead or four, or why they chose lion-tailed instead of southern pig-tailed, and if they should have chosen a species based on education, but it doesn't undermine the general idea that zoos should be serious about which macaques they want to perserve for the future.
It is true that there's a good chance that a species phased out now will be endangered a few decades into the future. But the species they choose are already in danger now, and there's no reason to assume they'll be out of danger in a few decades. Hard choices have to be made, but I'd rather have three healthy macaque populations than eight struggling ones. It is an illusion to think zoos can keep viable population of all macaque species now found in Europe. At this moment, EAZA can still decide which species they want to keep, and have the option to go for ones they know can benefit from ex-situ conservation. The stakes are simply too high to just let go and let random events and the interests of individual zoos decide which species make it and which don't.