Celebrating ABCs

mazfc

Well-Known Member
One of my big bugbears has arisen on another thread recently - that of calling the more common zoo species ABCs. It really annoys me! I find it devalues some amazing animals. Does it matter that big draw animals can be seen at lots of places? These animals are often pretty endangered in the wild themselves. I was particularly surprised to see gorillas classified as such - surely not 10 a penny!?

Do you consider any animals to be ABC? I'd be interested to see if your country effects what you consider to be ABC.
What do you consider to be ABC ( or do you)?
Are there any that you go out of your way to see?
Was it the ABC that got you interested in zoos eyc in the first place?

Note I haven't done a poll :D ;)
 
To me an ABC animal is the species that the general public expect to see,at a zoo and not like many of us zoonerds on here.In which case if I was to ask any of my none zoonerd friends I would full expect to see them following listed as what they expect to see at a zoo Lion,Tiger,Bear,Chimpanzee,Gorilla,Zebra,Sealion,Monkeys,Rhino,Hippo,Elephant,Crocodiles,Flamingos,Parrots,Meerkat and Giraffes.I'm pretty sure there will be stuff I have missed that hey would expect to see,

Gorillas while not that common in the UK are far more common in mainland Europe,and yes I would still consider them an ABC even in the UK,as the general public expect to see them.

I have been known to go out of my way for ABC animals but most of the time that is because they are either Giraffes or Crocodilians which I have more than a passing interest in.
 
This thread seems odd to me - I've never read any negative connotations into the term 'ABC' - it's just a handy way of referring to the animals the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would expect/want to see in a zoo (zg's list above seems pretty good). I certainly wouldn't say being called an ABC was necessarily derisory in any way, any more than being called an 'LBJ' or 'oddball' would be.

I wouldn't use ABC to describe a species that is common in zoos but not widely known - Capybara or Cattle Egrets for example are common zoo species but not what I'd understand by the term 'ABC'. Bear in mind the origin of the term - those alphabet books/posters. C may be for Cat, for Camel or for Crocodile but it's unlikely to be for Capybara! E will be for Elephant, not Egret.

Some of my favourites in a zoo are ABCs (giraffes, Grant's Zebras, Common Hippos) and some are not (Sable Antelope, Yellow-throated Martens, Wolverines - also Capybaras, who were being very entertaining this afternoon at YWP!).

As I think I've said in the past, a major draw for me of zoos is the ability to see and to watch a huge variety of animal life - both 'ABCs' and 'non-ABCs'. So if I ever use 'ABCs' it's only to differentiate between the 'big stars' that you'd expect to draw the average visitor through the gates, and the less well-known interesting surprises they find once they're in there.



Give me a hippo, rhino or wolf any day over some obscure monkey.

What's wrong with obscure monkeys?! :p
 
This thread seems odd to me - I've never read any negative connotations into the term 'ABC' - it's just a handy way of referring to the animals the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would expect/want to see in a zoo (zg's list above seems pretty good). I certainly wouldn't say being called an ABC was necessarily derisory in any way, any more than being called an 'LBJ' or 'oddball' would be.

I wouldn't use ABC to describe a species that is common in zoos but not widely known - Capybara or Cattle Egrets for example are common zoo species but not what I'd understand by the term 'ABC'. Bear in mind the origin of the term - those alphabet books/posters. C may be for Cat, for Camel or for Crocodile but it's unlikely to be for Capybara! E will be for Elephant, not Egret.

Some of my favourites in a zoo are ABCs (giraffes, Grant's Zebras, Common Hippos) and some are not (Sable Antelope, Yellow-throated Martens, Wolverines - also Capybaras, who were being very entertaining this afternoon at YWP!).

As I think I've said in the past, a major draw for me of zoos is the ability to see and to watch a huge variety of animal life - both 'ABCs' and 'non-ABCs'. So if I ever use 'ABCs' it's only to differentiate between the 'big stars' that you'd expect to draw the average visitor through the gates, and the less well-known interesting surprises they find once they're in there.





What's wrong with obscure monkeys?! :p





Lol nothing, but they will not keep me looking at them for long unlike hippo's and yes capybara's would.
 
Lol nothing, but they will not keep me looking at them for long unlike hippo's and yes capybara's would.

I tend to think:

a) almost any animal is at least moderately interesting!

b) there are two types of 'particularly interesting animal':

- those that are 'interesting to see' - i.e. species I've never or rarely seen before

- usually more numerous, those that are 'interesting to watch' - which could be rare or unusual or incredibly common or anything in between but are just well-displayed or giving a good view or doing something entertaining/interesting (and this could apply to any species, even my own personal 'interest blind spot' of great apes!)

c) monkeys are fun :D
 
I know the Oklahoma City Zoo in their redesign beginning in the 1990s focused on the "ABCs." Their ABCs were Apes, Bears, and Cats. They already had excellent Dog exhibits and the next thing built was the Elephant exhibit. Flamingos next?
 
Lion,Tiger,Bear,Chimpanzee,Gorilla,Zebra,Sealion,Monkeys,Rhino,Hippo,Elephant,Crocodiles,Flamingos,Parrots,Meerkat and Giraffes.I'm pretty sure there will be stuff I have missed that hey would expect to see,

The irony being that these days, sealions and bears are more likely than not to be absent, whilst many species which wouldn't immediately occur to the non-zoonerd are ubiquitous - for instance the aforementioned capybara.

Another "rare" ABC in the UK would be the common hippo.
 
I'm glad that there is love out there for the more well known species, it always read as derogatory and not worth seeing to me when I read the phrase so I personally don't think this thread is strange - glad that's not the case...so far. :)
 
I'm glad that there is love out there for the more well known species, it always read as derogatory and not worth seeing to me when I read the phrase so I personally don't think this thread is strange - glad that's not the case...so far. :)
When I use the term its certainly not used as a derogatory term,more away of describing a term for a species that anybody will have heard,given that I know I do tend to find some obscure LBJ far more interesting than an ABC that everyone knows of.
 
mazfc said:
I'm glad that there is love out there for the more well known species, it always read as derogatory and not worth seeing to me when I read the phrase so I personally don't think this thread is strange - glad that's not the case...so far.
I've never interpreted ABC as being derogartory in any way, it is just a handy "alphabet-book" term for the larger animals (usually mammals) that a non-zoo-freak would expect to see in zoos, i.e. the animals that are well-known to everybody even if they have no interest in animals as such.

I can't really do better than just quote Maguari:
Maguari said:
This thread seems odd to me - I've never read any negative connotations into the term 'ABC' - it's just a handy way of referring to the animals the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would expect/want to see in a zoo (zg's list above seems pretty good). I certainly wouldn't say being called an ABC was necessarily derisory in any way, any more than being called an 'LBJ' or 'oddball' would be.

I wouldn't use ABC to describe a species that is common in zoos but not widely known - Capybara or Cattle Egrets for example are common zoo species but not what I'd understand by the term 'ABC'. Bear in mind the origin of the term - those alphabet books/posters. C may be for Cat, for Camel or for Crocodile but it's unlikely to be for Capybara! E will be for Elephant, not Egret.

Some of my favourites in a zoo are ABCs (giraffes, Grant's Zebras, Common Hippos) and some are not (Sable Antelope, Yellow-throated Martens, Wolverines - also Capybaras, who were being very entertaining this afternoon at YWP!).

As I think I've said in the past, a major draw for me of zoos is the ability to see and to watch a huge variety of animal life - both 'ABCs' and 'non-ABCs'. So if I ever use 'ABCs' it's only to differentiate between the 'big stars' that you'd expect to draw the average visitor through the gates, and the less well-known interesting surprises they find once they're in there.
 
I agree with the general concensus that ABC animals are the ones that visitors expect to see in zoos and tend to be the animals found in animal alphabet books, although there have been changes over the years. Some letters of the alphabet are more closely related to popular animals than others.
A: ape or antelope
B: bear
C: camel, crocodile or chimpanzee
D: deer or dolphin
E: elephant
F: fox or fish (but probably a big fish), but no real ABCs
G: giraffe or gorilla
H: hippopotamus
I: ibex or ibis, not really ABCs
J: jaguar
K: kangaroo
L: lion
M: monkey or meerkat
N: no real ABCs
O: otter, orang-utan, ostrich or owl
P: panda, parrot or penguin
Q: no real ABCs
R: rhinoceros
S: snake, sea lion or shark
T: tiger
U: no real ABCs
V: vultures aren't really ABCs
W:wolf
X: no real ABCs
Y; yaks aren't ABCs
Z: zebra

Most of the animals listed above are large mammals and I think most visitors expect to see elephants, hippos, rhinos, big cats, bears, great apes and large hoofed mammals and perhaps some monkeys, wild dogs and kangaroos. Meerkats have moved into the ABCs in the past few years and lemurs are also becoming more popular. Relatively few non-mammals make the list. These include ostriches, flamingoes, pelicans and other large birds, penguins, parrots and a few birds of prey, large and venomous snakes, crocodiles, sharks and perhaps spiders. I was pleased to see lots of signposts pointing to Prague Zoo's new gharial exhibit in 2009, but I would never class a gharial as an ABC animal.

As others have said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in ABC animals. I have spent some time looking at Prague Zoo's male Rothschild's giraffe with its very dark markings on an almost white background or the Asiatic elephant with enormous tusks at Paris Vincennes Zoo. I have also wondered why people have spent long periods of time looking at a sleeping giant panda, which I found as interesting as a stuffed black and white cushion. Similarly, just because an animal is rare or unusual, it doesn't necessarily make it interesting to a visitor. I wondered why 'flying snakes' are exhibited as paradise tree snakes, as the title 'gliding snake' with an accompanying film would attract more visitors. I like the idea of the walk through gliding snake enclosure in another discussion. I tend to find active animals more interesting than inactive ones. I talked with the olingo keeper at Kilverstone Zoo and saw one of the animals moving about. This was far more interesting than seeing a ball of fluff at Exmouth Zoo.

I can understand the principle of ABC animals being used to attract visitors, but there should be a balance with endangered, non-ABC animals. I compiled a list of animals with most captive individuals and this includes ABC and non-ABC species and species from not yet threatened to critically endangered. The list is about a year old and was compiled using ISIS records. The list below includes ABC animals and some other popular species. It is not a complete list and, while I've tried to be objective about what I've included, some omissions and inclusions will be contentious:

Budgerigar 7922, Goldfish 7547, Goat 5162, Red piranha 5018, American flamingo 4822,
Chilean flamingo 4807, Greater flamingo 4662, Common peafowl 3896, Sheep 3792,
Red jungle fowl 3570, Mallard 2715, Humboldt’s penguin 2624, Ring-tailed lemur 2501, Slender-tailed meerkat 2227, Chimpanzee 2151, Black-tailed prairie dog 2058, Cheetah 1980, Jackass penguin 1920, Domestic ox 1763, American alligator 1731, Lion 1696,
Tiger 1666, Rabbit 1622, Lesser flamingo 1525, Grey wolf 1508 (includes 65 dingo, 282 domestic dog, 77 singing dog), Common zebra 1500, Horse 1482, Domestic guinea pig 1471, Giraffe 1461, Hamadryas baboon 1427, Blue and yellow macaw 1340, Wild boar 1295, Boa constrictor 1244, Common squirrel monkey 1187, Emu 1180, Llama 1151,
White-knee tarantula 1044, Eastern white pelican 1035, Grey parrot 1013, Red kangaroo 1011, Greater rhea 955, Northern seahorse 944, African wild ass and donkey 887, Oriental small-clawed otter 842, Bolivian squirrel monkey 831, Black and white ruffed lemur 825, Brown capuchin 789, Leopard 771, Bactrian camel 767, Turkey 754,
Western gorilla 753, Caribou 705, Scarlet macaw 688, Orang-utan 673 (inc 236 Sumatran, 329 Bornean), Hunting dog 648, Red ruffed lemur 596, Raccoon 551,
Californian sealion 548, Asiatic elephant 540, Laughing kookaburra 529, White rhino 511,
Brown bear 505.

When I compiled this list, I was surprised about some species, especially species I'd never seen in any zoo, but which have very large captive populations, while some very popular ABC animals are relatively scarce in captivity.

Basically, it doesn't really matter if an animal is in the ABC category or not, as long as it is kept in good environment and care is taken about its welfare. I think the problem lies when zoos spend vast sums of money on animals that will never be returned to the wild and neglect other species that could be saved from extinction. I was pleased that so many visitors were interested in the animals in Berlin Tierpark's Rodent House, but more people are probably interested in a sleeping ABC animal than an active obscure species and very few people would be interested in a dormant obscure species, especially if they can't see it.
 
As I posted in the other thread, two of my favourite animals are rhinoceros and orangutan, the former impresses me as a group, whilst I find orangs to be my favourite 'entertaining' zoo animal and have had a love of these since childhood.

'ABC' to me doesn't mean an animal that I can find in nearly every zoo, nor does 'LBJ' mean an animal that's the only one in captivity. To me, a panda is ABC, whilst a Patagonian mara is LBJ.

It's a way of differentiating between what any old average joe will know and what fewer people will know about. Of course, there is middle ground species as well, in my mind these are things like aardvark, capybara, manatee etc - species that it doesn't take a zoonerd to know, but species that some will either find dull or not be aware exists.

Other than public perceptions of these species, there is no difference, especially not in my appreciation of any animal :)
 
Javan Rhino said:
'ABC' to me doesn't mean an animal that I can find in nearly every zoo, nor does 'LBJ' mean an animal that's the only one in captivity. To me, a panda is ABC, whilst a Patagonian mara is LBJ.
LBJ stands for Little Brown Job and is an (originally British) birding term for small passerines that are "boring" or that are hard to distinguish from other similar species. I'm not sure a mara really qualifies as an LBJ......
 
LBJ stands for Little Brown Job and is an (originally British) birding term for small passerines that are "boring" or that are hard to distinguish from other similar species. I'm not sure a mara really qualifies as an LBJ......

I've seen LBJ applied to small mammals as well pretty often. Most rodents would probably qualify as little brown jobs!

But it certainly started in birding - British warblers being the classic LBJs.
 
I've seen LBJ applied to small mammals as well pretty often. Most rodents would probably qualify as little brown jobs!

But it certainly started in birding - British warblers being the classic LBJs.
the bane of mammal-watchers are the rodents and bats, and certainly I agree "LBJ" could be used for those (I'm sure I have seen it used for rodents on here before). I was really just meaning that it can't legitimately be used as a broad alternative for "ABC" in zoo animals which is what it looked like Javan Rhino was doing.
 
the bane of mammal-watchers are the rodents and bats, and certainly I agree "LBJ" could be used for those (I'm sure I have seen it used for rodents on here before). I was really just meaning that it can't legitimately be used as a broad alternative for "ABC" in zoo animals which is what it looked like Javan Rhino was doing.

Perhaps I could have used a different term, what I was trying to highlight was that not all general zoo visitors would necessarily know what a mara is, whilst at the same time highlighting that [in my opinion] something that isn't ABC can be just as common, if not more so :)
 
mazfc said:
Do you consider any animals to be ABC? I'd be interested to see if your country effects what you consider to be ABC.
What do you consider to be ABC ( or do you)?
Are there any that you go out of your way to see?
Was it the ABC that got you interested in zoos eyc in the first place?
I just realised that nobody has really bothered to answer the specific questions posed in the initial post. So:
1) as said by a few already (and I think everybody here more-or-less agrees), ABCs are basically any of the well-known animals (usually large and mammalian) that any person has heard of irrespective of their knowledge of animals in general. Examples being things like lions, tigers, elephants, hippos, etc. It isn't derogatory that they are well-known, it's just the way it is.
2) I don't think country really affects what is perceived as an ABC. Wombats and echidnas are two-a-penny in Australian zoos but I doubt even Australians think of them as ABCs. I think the idea behind what is commonplace is established from childhood books, and they are pretty uniform whatever country you're in.
3) I kind of answered "What do you consider to be ABC ( or do you)?" already in number 1 above.
4) I suppose it may have been an alphabet animal book that got/kept me interested in animals but I don't know for sure. The books that would have first interested me would surely have been animal ones (e.g. The Hungry Caterpillar, The Lion In The Meadow). I do remember when I was young being irritated by one particular ABC animal book that had an imaginary animal for X. They'd just made up an animal name and drawn a fantasy beast :(



I'll just add that I find lions incredibly boring, tigers are alright, giraffes are beautiful, I don't like chimps, gorillas are okay, elephants are pretty meh, hippos are great, I like bears but deplore how they are usually kept (on concrete), zebras and other hoofstock are a bit pedestrian. In mammals my tastes really do go more towards the smaller and unusual. It's not because I don't like ABCs, it's just I prefer smaller animals on the whole. (E.g. I like most small cats, I don't really get much from most big cats). That's all in a zoo setting, in the wild is an entirely different situation. I would love to see gorillas, elephants, zebras et al!! (As well as the elephant shrews and rock hyrax!).
 
But it certainly started in birding - British warblers being the classic LBJs.

The most confusing British Warblers are really 'LYJ's- little yellow jobs. I often think 'LBJ' is more appropriate for some of the smaller waders which can be equally(more?)confusing.
 
2) I don't think country really affects what is perceived as an ABC. Wombats and echidnas are two-a-penny in Australian zoos but I doubt even Australians think of them as ABCs. I think the idea behind what is commonplace is established from childhood books, and they are pretty uniform whatever country you're in.

This is an interesting point because I would definitely count things like koalas, wombats and cockatoos as ABC species in Australia. They're the type of thing that everyone (in Australia at least) has heard of from a young age, would expect to see when they go to the zoo, and are present in nearly every collection. That pretty much sums up an ABC species but in America, for example, koalas probably cause quite a stir.
 
Back
Top