Celebrating ABCs
- Thread starter mazfc
- Start date
Kangaroos and wallabies - the ultimate Australian ABC.
The term LBJ, as I was told many years ago, doesn't refer to any particular group. It is used to describe some little blur that flies past you so damn quick you can't even tell which family it belongs to.
Hix
Maguari said:
Pertinax said:
The term LBJ, as I was told many years ago, doesn't refer to any particular group. It is used to describe some little blur that flies past you so damn quick you can't even tell which family it belongs to.
Hix
the way I was looking at ABCs was if you asked a child or non-animal person to list the animals they would expect to see in the zoo, the ABCs would be what they would give as replies. Kangaroos probably yes, koalas quite likely because everyone knows "koala bears" even if they aren't common in overseas zoos (I had deliberately not mentioned kangaroos and koalas in my earlier post because I think they are ABCs), but would even Australians include wombats and echidnas on their list unless you specifically asked if they would call a wombat a common zoo animal? Or would the list just be dominated by lions, tigers, elephants, giraffes and the like?
Other than Hoofstock (most people know my passion for Hoofstock) my favorite animals are Elephants a classic ABC species.
Perhaps not a very small child, but by late primary age I suspect most Australians are accustomed to expecting kangaroos, koalas, wombats and to a lesser extent echidnas at the zoo, yes.
Whether they're particularly *excited* to see them is a different question. They're never the most hyperactive of animals.
I actually thought of another animal which goes against my idea: emu. In Australia this must surely be an ABC sort of zoo inhabitant, but probably not anywhere else overseas (then it would more likely be an ostrich).
I guess you could say that there are the "standard" ABCs (lions, elephants, etc which must be worldwide ABCs) but in some countries there are additional ABCs which are peculiar to that country's "zoo ideal", such as wombats and emus in Australia.
I guess you could say that there are the "standard" ABCs (lions, elephants, etc which must be worldwide ABCs) but in some countries there are additional ABCs which are peculiar to that country's "zoo ideal", such as wombats and emus in Australia.
Emu are pretty ABC, actually. 30 UK collections on zootierliste have ostrich, whilst 40 have emu - and I know of a good few petting-farm type places not on ZTL which keep emu too! Even more places keep rhea, so ostriches are actually one of the least ABC of the ratites over here!
Now if you'd said kiwi, you'd have been correct - none in the UK and only 5 collections in Europe with them.
Emu's are very very common in the United States.
I think there is a flaw in the concept of what is an ABC. There are many zoos that have red-necked wallabies and if any wallaby is an ABC animal, it is that specis. On the other hand, some wallabies can't be considered to be ABC animals. These include the bridled nail-tailed wallaby. I have only seen the dusky pademelon in one zoo (Plzen) and a Dorcopsis wallaby in one zoo (Taronga) and wouldn't classify either type as ABCs.
Also, I would consider Indian, black and white rhinos to be ABC animals, but is the Sumatran rhino one? I don't think the Javan rhino is.
TeaLovingDave said:
whether the animal is actually common in zoos or not isn't what matters with the ABC concept. As has been pointed out previously, animals such as mara are common in zoos but cannot be considered an ABC zoo animal because most people wouldn't even know what they were. Hippos and sealions are definitely ABC zoo animals but are actually not found in many (UK) zoos. Speaking for myself, an ABC is an animal that a child or non-animal person would consider a "standard" zoo animal. How many of those would say emu? Even if prompted to name a bird rather than a mammal, ostrich would be a far more common choice because far more people have heard of it.tschandler71 said:
My interpretation of an ABC animal is not one that is found in the most zoos, but rather one that the most people have heard of and recognise as a zoo animal.
for the purposes of ABCs I think wallaby, kangaroo, rhino suffice. They are generic recognitions. Your average zoo visitor doesn't know or often care about distinctions such as dusky pademelon or antilopine wallaroo -- they're all just kangaroos.Dassie rat said:
Well, that's kind of my point - I reckon more children *would* name emu than ostrich, because emu are the ones which they are much more likely to see on petting farms, which are many children's first exposure to a zoo-type environment.
And for those born in the 1970s and 80s - and possibly the early 90s - they will also know about emus thanks to this man
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Hull]Rod Hull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
hmm, it seems I've been defeated again!!
It would actually be interesting to round up a whole load of non-Zoochatters and get them to list what they consider the archetypal zoo animals.
It would actually be interesting to round up a whole load of non-Zoochatters and get them to list what they consider the archetypal zoo animals.
I agree - I reckon the only species certain to be on the list would be:
Lion
Tiger
Elephant
Giraffe
Zebra
Rhino
And rhea get it too, but only in the one direction - I've heard many, many people call a rhea an emu, but I've never heard anyone call an emu a rhea.
I think you're probably right that most people aren't interested in the species or race, although I'd suggest that kangaroos would then be counted as ABCs, possibly including wallabies, while wallabies wouldn't. I remember when large kangaroos were placed in the genus Macropus, distinct from any wallabies. The fact that 'Macropus' includes several wallaby species and the red kangaroo was been placed in a separate genus, Megaleia, is probably only confusing for specialists. I doubt if most zoo visitors would be interested.
As many people think that gorillas and chimpanzees are monkeys, would 'monkeys' be ABC animals? If not, I think gorillas and chimps would be ABCs, but gibbons wouldn't. I'm not sure about orang-utans.
Gorillas are an interesting case - there are less collections keeping them in the UK than keep chimps, but I reckon gorillas would occur to a member of the public before chimps would!
Gibbons are definitely not ABC - orangutans I really don't know either way.
I think "monkey" would have to suffice as an ABC descriptive because I doubt most average visitors would be able to name more than a few different species (although they would probably distinguish "baboon" from "monkey", but "chimpanzee" would more often than not be also included in the latter....)