"Boring" animals
- Thread starter Pygathrix
- Start date
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
"Rightly"? Hmpf, doubt that...I'm neither trying to make You mention another thread nor do I want to "score points" to "win"; please free Yourself from this incorrect assumption-it will make two-way discussions in the future easier.
I already answered Your question-just read my previous posts at this thread.
Sorry that I have to contradict here (once again), but I seriously doubt that; most people would look at the exhibit, move on if they didn't spot any animals in 5s, or, if they saw some, their standard response would be "Yikes, just snails; I can have that at home" and move to the more "attractive" animals.
I disagree, several Partula species with well written posters showing diagrams of each species' diagnostic features would encourage visitors to look more closely. Nearby would be giant snails and euglandina to complete the story. Such a display could illustrate evolution/extinction very clearly. Chester zoo has something along these lines although it could be improved, and it usually has a fair number of visitors interested in it.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
How much is "fair"?
I don't want to be a downer-but face it, @Pygathrix: in reality, even the nicest, most detailed diagrams about snails won't turn these poor creatures into crowd pleasers that will overshadow lions, giraffes or pandas. However, Your vision could be given the credit that it would be a nice component in an "islands"-based zoo theme-but it would only be an addition valued by a rather small part of the visitors; animals like ring-tailed lemurs, Orang-Utans or Komodo Dragons would still be the "main attractions".
There is something else that can highly determine whether a species is "boring" or not-and forumbully randomly mentioned it: it's the media. Just think of the significance meerkats, warthogs, clownfish, palette surgeonfish and naked mole rats (well, the latter always had a "freak" status
) had in zoos BEFORE and AFTER the Disney movies/series aired. Or think of "Madagascar" and the lemurs/fossas... The "best thing" that could ever happen to Partula snails, kagus, tomistomas and all those other "boring" species in zoos in terms of "attractiveness boosting" would be a significant role in a Disney movie. If that happened, I'd retract my statement concerning Partula snails-the behaviour of the visitors in regard to them would change drastically-and we'd soon see a lot more Partula snail exhibits pop up in various zoos...
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Nay, all we got was the short-lived TV-series "The Partulas of Playboy Mansion" (rated R), and "Kim Partula"...
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
You sure do contradict yourself a lot Sun... Why it was you yourself who posted a link to an article by the former director of Bronx Zoo stating how a ordinary frog could be made one of the best, absorbing, educational exhibits with some imagination...
Partula snails in a naturalistic enclosure; with small cameras set up in their favourite hidden locations on a screen which the public can cycle through, well designed signage showing their amazing way of reproducing by puncturing the sperm sac of others with a huge thorn and a monitor showing a short five minute video of their quite amazing lives would certainly engross the public... They could be part of an islands display as you say or next to the carnivorous snails destroying them (which could be incorporated into the signage and/or video)...
Anyway these are some of the ideas off the top of my head and if little old me can think of all these in 5 mintues, I surely must disagree with you that it is impossible to display them in an educational and entertaining way...
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Patrick is correct-that's exactly what I intended to underline. I would be interested in such an exhibit-but most visitors aren't.
For once and for all: I tend not to contradict myself; what I do is rather to state objections to certain statements, amplify suggestions or refute assumptions; all in a as neutral as possible form. These objections/amplifications don't have to agree with what I personally think/favour etc.; they are just there to stimulate further thoughts.
Then answer, NZJeremy: why hasn't anyone built Conway's Bullfrog exhibit yet? Or Your 5-minutes plan if it is so easy?
For once and for all: I tend not to contradict myself; what I do is rather to state objections to certain statements, amplify suggestions or refute assumptions; all in a as neutral as possible form. These objections/amplifications don't have to agree with what I personally think/favour etc.; they are just there to stimulate further thoughts.
Then answer, NZJeremy: why hasn't anyone built Conway's Bullfrog exhibit yet? Or Your 5-minutes plan if it is so easy?
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure he was taking the piss out of you...
Its good to see you actually amdit you'll post whatever you think can get a rise out of as many people as possible...
They have, where do you think I got the ideas from..?
The fibre optic cameras that the public can control, I've seen in a Tuatara exhibit here in NZ... Amazing engrossing signs can be seen at countless institutions around the world... And the TV idea comes from the old 'VENOM' exhibit at the Baltimore Aquarium where quite stationary animals where made much more interesting by showing how they behave in the wild...
How quickly your argument changes, first you state that Partula Snails can't be exhibited interestingly and when I demonstrate how, you ask why hasn't anyone..?
I don't know why I'm debating you again its quite pointless...
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@NZ Jeremy: Even if he did-judging from the smiley-his interpretation was correct.
Yours, however, "you'll post whatever you think can get a rise out of as many people as possible..." isn't; this is not my intention. I just want You all to look at things from different angles, to see flaws in Your individual argumentation that could be corrected and nullified by combined cogitation-to achieve something better. Maybe a smarter, more effective standpoint that could prove valuable when dealing with people who are really against Your argumentation and want to prove You wrong. This is especially true in terms of zoos; I've met a few of the anti-zoo lobby so far, and learned some important things from that. One thing is that You should be prepared to offer them answers they can't denounce easily; be prepared that their argumentation might look pointless, irrelevant or extreme to You-but that they can use this to corner You and destroy Your points without giving You a chance. Maybe that's my role in this forum: assume the role of the bothersome gadfly in Socratic sense, so that we together can find arguments and ideas that can both stand their ground against critics and maybe be of benefit for the future of zoos.
Another thing is constructive criticism combined with realism; there exists nothing like a "perfect" zoo world, and addressing these inherent problems instead of positivizing, belittling and even ignoring them will benefit the zoos and animals within. Additionally, You should also keep the consequences, the practicability and plausibility of Your critism and derived suggestions in mind.
So, if You state that "there should be no elephants in urban zoos", You also have to think about the possible aspects, the pro's and con's and consequences on all levels, of such a statement-and do not consider the well-intentioned references as personal insults, but as helpful in terms of generating deeper thinking about the subject-and thus not generating senseless lenghty mutual vituperations, but productive conversation. So please, and this is also true for patrick and others, think about it next time, someone, most likely me, replies to Your statement: "I contradict, because..." that this is NOT meant as
a) point-scoring or dogmatic hair-splitting just to "win" a discussion
b) a personal insult to debase You
c) an attempt of a belligerent trouble maker just trying to make up a senseless discussion,
but in the way mentioned above: more food for thoughts, i.e. asking You to take another look at Your statement from another viewpoint, think about this objection and either incorporate or vitiate it in a reasonable, polite, comprehensible and generative manner. I enjoy discussing with You guys because it gives me an interesting insight in international zoo attitudes-but I don't enjoy always having to lenghty justify what I wrote because someone feels offended, misread, misinterpreted etc. and feels he/she has to snap at me, resulting in hardened feelings.
And no, NZ Jeremy-nobody has built Conway's "Bullfrog Exhibit" -yet. There have been tiny attempts to do such, but none of these experiments has proven to be long-lived or spread all over the world, may it be Denver's Komodo Dragon exhibit or Vienna's Zoo aquarium. Independent as well as zoo-based studies have shown that despite the nice, beautiful "Amazing engrossing" exhibit signs, only a small percentage of the visitors actually reads these-and the kids just hammer randomly on the interactive computer counsils etc. until they're broken. This is btw. another argument anti-zoo people love to use; a possible response, derived from a quote by Grzimek, could be that this small percentage of people is at least something. However, let us also think how to improve this aspect; f.e., the educational value of some US zoo signs isn't bad-but how could this be improved to grab the attention of more visitors? How could You make "boring" animals more interesting-without investing in too many fancy, fragile, expensive and sometimes misleading electronic gagdets? That's just the "food for thoughts" I'd like to achieve...
Lastly: I did not change my viewpoint. I didn't say that I agreed that Your suggestion would make Partula snails more interesting, NZ Jeremy. All I did was simply ask why such an exhibit does not exist-in terms of Partula snails. And indeed-there is not such a Partula snail exhibit in any zoo worldwide. The question-"why"-is most possibily answered by the low cost-attraction/effect ratio I mentioned above. "Oh", You might cry out loudly, "this is just pointless controversial aiming at extremes, attempting to lead a discussion". No, it's not; it just underlines that there are species that are not attractive for the majority of visitors, no matter how much funky gadgets You would build around them (most likely, the gadgets would be more interesting than the animal itself), and that in terms of successful & far-reaching educational values, zoos still have a long way to go.
So the question, maybe leading to a thread on its own, should be: How to improve the educational value of zoos-even in terms of "boring" animals?
Chlidonias' hint about the kiwi enclosure for example is highly interesting-it means that so far all kiwi exhibits I have seen in zoos are wrongly constructed. Adding permanent guides (and "bouncers" in terms of noisy children) is a good idea-but I know that a lot of zoos would now object that this would be too expensive-and might even anger visitors(You won't believe how some parents react when their ill bred brats are reprehended by someone-even if it's completely justified..).
Yours, however, "you'll post whatever you think can get a rise out of as many people as possible..." isn't; this is not my intention. I just want You all to look at things from different angles, to see flaws in Your individual argumentation that could be corrected and nullified by combined cogitation-to achieve something better. Maybe a smarter, more effective standpoint that could prove valuable when dealing with people who are really against Your argumentation and want to prove You wrong. This is especially true in terms of zoos; I've met a few of the anti-zoo lobby so far, and learned some important things from that. One thing is that You should be prepared to offer them answers they can't denounce easily; be prepared that their argumentation might look pointless, irrelevant or extreme to You-but that they can use this to corner You and destroy Your points without giving You a chance. Maybe that's my role in this forum: assume the role of the bothersome gadfly in Socratic sense, so that we together can find arguments and ideas that can both stand their ground against critics and maybe be of benefit for the future of zoos.
Another thing is constructive criticism combined with realism; there exists nothing like a "perfect" zoo world, and addressing these inherent problems instead of positivizing, belittling and even ignoring them will benefit the zoos and animals within. Additionally, You should also keep the consequences, the practicability and plausibility of Your critism and derived suggestions in mind.
So, if You state that "there should be no elephants in urban zoos", You also have to think about the possible aspects, the pro's and con's and consequences on all levels, of such a statement-and do not consider the well-intentioned references as personal insults, but as helpful in terms of generating deeper thinking about the subject-and thus not generating senseless lenghty mutual vituperations, but productive conversation. So please, and this is also true for patrick and others, think about it next time, someone, most likely me, replies to Your statement: "I contradict, because..." that this is NOT meant as
a) point-scoring or dogmatic hair-splitting just to "win" a discussion
b) a personal insult to debase You
c) an attempt of a belligerent trouble maker just trying to make up a senseless discussion,
but in the way mentioned above: more food for thoughts, i.e. asking You to take another look at Your statement from another viewpoint, think about this objection and either incorporate or vitiate it in a reasonable, polite, comprehensible and generative manner. I enjoy discussing with You guys because it gives me an interesting insight in international zoo attitudes-but I don't enjoy always having to lenghty justify what I wrote because someone feels offended, misread, misinterpreted etc. and feels he/she has to snap at me, resulting in hardened feelings.
And no, NZ Jeremy-nobody has built Conway's "Bullfrog Exhibit" -yet. There have been tiny attempts to do such, but none of these experiments has proven to be long-lived or spread all over the world, may it be Denver's Komodo Dragon exhibit or Vienna's Zoo aquarium. Independent as well as zoo-based studies have shown that despite the nice, beautiful "Amazing engrossing" exhibit signs, only a small percentage of the visitors actually reads these-and the kids just hammer randomly on the interactive computer counsils etc. until they're broken. This is btw. another argument anti-zoo people love to use; a possible response, derived from a quote by Grzimek, could be that this small percentage of people is at least something. However, let us also think how to improve this aspect; f.e., the educational value of some US zoo signs isn't bad-but how could this be improved to grab the attention of more visitors? How could You make "boring" animals more interesting-without investing in too many fancy, fragile, expensive and sometimes misleading electronic gagdets? That's just the "food for thoughts" I'd like to achieve...
Lastly: I did not change my viewpoint. I didn't say that I agreed that Your suggestion would make Partula snails more interesting, NZ Jeremy. All I did was simply ask why such an exhibit does not exist-in terms of Partula snails. And indeed-there is not such a Partula snail exhibit in any zoo worldwide. The question-"why"-is most possibily answered by the low cost-attraction/effect ratio I mentioned above. "Oh", You might cry out loudly, "this is just pointless controversial aiming at extremes, attempting to lead a discussion". No, it's not; it just underlines that there are species that are not attractive for the majority of visitors, no matter how much funky gadgets You would build around them (most likely, the gadgets would be more interesting than the animal itself), and that in terms of successful & far-reaching educational values, zoos still have a long way to go.
So the question, maybe leading to a thread on its own, should be: How to improve the educational value of zoos-even in terms of "boring" animals?
Chlidonias' hint about the kiwi enclosure for example is highly interesting-it means that so far all kiwi exhibits I have seen in zoos are wrongly constructed. Adding permanent guides (and "bouncers" in terms of noisy children) is a good idea-but I know that a lot of zoos would now object that this would be too expensive-and might even anger visitors(You won't believe how some parents react when their ill bred brats are reprehended by someone-even if it's completely justified..).
Last edited:
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
I wish I had stopped reading there and saved 5 mintues of my life... What an ego...
Hilarious..! The user who objects so strongly to anyone, "Telling him off in a schoolmasterly way", has now decided it is his role to be a "bothersome gadfly", the permanent Ying to the majority's Yang...
a). Are you kidding..? You have got into exactly these kind of "discussions" with, Yassa, Patrick, Snowleopard, Pythagrix, Londoner and myself amongst others (and these are just the threads I've read) and despite whatever you later post they are obviously about "point-scoring" and hair-splitting" and much more about your ego than anything zoological...
b). Again, are you kidding..? You are constantly questioning peoples' intelligence (only after they point out a hole in your argument of course) or flat out insulting people, on top of that, delightfully, you're quite an offensive person...
c). The difference between these self justification posts of yours and your actual posts about zoos are glaringly obvious to every one it seems except you...
Thats a joke right..? Were not here for you to highjack topics to get "insights", were here to post news, "facts" and our personal opinions about the zoos and animals we love...
*sigh*
When I said, "They have" I was referring to "My 5 mintue plan", as you put it, "I don't enjoy explaining these mis-interpretations"...
Wouldn't make it more interesting eh..? Well I guess we'll just have to disagree... I'll also mark it as one of your opinions that technology cannot be used to make exhibit interpretation more interesting... Technology another phobia you have eh..?
Anyway back on topic:
Patrick, has Melbourne Museum got the same display that I saw on March '06..? (Refer a few posts ago)
From what I remember it had some factors that would make the display of what could be considered "boring animals" more interesting..?
Last edited:
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
No, just a premonitory gut instinct when it comes to the average Zoo visitor and breakable zoo inventory...
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@Pygathrix, NZ Jeremy: Relax, my easily incensed conversational partners, and don't be afraid. I just wanted to finish the final icing on the cake...
For some reason you can't type in capitals (probably to stop people SHOUTING)
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally, "that which was to have been demonstrated"). The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument, to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally, "that which was to have been demonstrated"). The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument, to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete.