There's always the judicial approach:-
Alan
- Exhibit A
- Exhibit B
- Exhibit C
Alan
Exhibit Naming - what do you prefer?
- Thread starter Javan Rhino
- Start date
There's always the judicial approach:-. . . . and so on
- Exhibit A
- Exhibit B
- Exhibit C
Alan
I'm not sure you are taking this thread very seriously
Last edited:
True- but 'Gorilla Peninsula' doesn't sound quite as interesting somehow.
I actually think it is rather 'hipster' to be honest with you
, haha.
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
I perfer just a plain, straight out geographical name for the exhibit.
I would prefer geographic names. If the exhibit is very large such as an entire continent, it could be divided up into smaller sections by species names or habitats, although I prefer habitats unless there are only 1 or 2 species and they are important to the casual visitors. Generally I ignore the names anyway though.
One thing I don't like is using specific country names, for example Tanzania with Reid Park Zoo. The only reason is that somewhere that might have very positive associations now could be quite different in the future and you might not want to have that connection with your zoo and its exhibits.
You're talking my language Reggie - or Pootle in this case. Mind you "Bug" is a bit trendy for me - I'd go for "Invertebrate". I did used to like "Pachyderm House" too when Chester was still worth visiting (sorry Chester lovers, I can't stop myself; maybe a New Year resolution is in order
).P.S. It was about time Lancashire won the County Championship. I was just delighted Yorkshire got relegated, not that I like two divisions. Come on good old Sussex by the sea.
DejaVuKatz
Active Member
Denver zoo just renamed their exhibit Toyota Elephant Passage. Which tells no one anything other then there is some type of elephant. It isn't descriptive and it use to be called Asian Tropics, which wasn't a bad name, but not the best name either.
I think exhibit naming by geographic locations is the best way to go. But, as I have noticed experimenting with my own fictional zoos, it's pretty hard to come up with other words for forest, mountains, etc, which is why I think names like "Spirit of the Jaguar" exist.
I agree 100% with Zooish's post.
I agree 100% with Zooish's post.
I don't like exhibit names that reinforce public prejudices. The worst example I can think of here is Chessington's Creepy-Caves, the name of its reptile house. How can we convince people that actually reptiles are not slimy or sinister but, in many cases, extremely beautiful creatures, when the building is given such a ridiculous title?
I don't like unnecessarily grandiose names for relatively simple exhibits. The enclosure for Meerkats at Jersey Zoo (Durrell) goes by the, to me, pretentious name of Discovery Desert. Colchester Zoo has quite a simple, unremarkable, exhibit for Patas Monkeys that goes by the grandiloquent name of...Patas Plains. Quite unnecessary. And I think I'm right in saying that Chester Zoo once had, or perhaps still has, a exhibit for Prairie Dogs called Marmot Mania. Or did I just imagine that?
I have strong reservations about the name of London Zoo's invertebrate house (yes, I know there are other things in there besides invertebrates but essentially it's an invertebrate house. I mean to say...B.U.G.S! I wonder how many visitors realise what the initials stand for - "Biodiversity Underpinning Global Survival" - and fewer still would understand what it means. Mind you, its former name, "Web of Life", was no better, as it gave no clue to what kind of animals were displayed within and in fact didn't sound like an animal house at all.
Above all, I like exhibit names to be imaginative. One of the most imaginatively named, in my opinion, is Tiger Taiga (Colchester Zoo's Amur Tiger enclosure).
I don't like unnecessarily grandiose names for relatively simple exhibits. The enclosure for Meerkats at Jersey Zoo (Durrell) goes by the, to me, pretentious name of Discovery Desert. Colchester Zoo has quite a simple, unremarkable, exhibit for Patas Monkeys that goes by the grandiloquent name of...Patas Plains. Quite unnecessary. And I think I'm right in saying that Chester Zoo once had, or perhaps still has, a exhibit for Prairie Dogs called Marmot Mania. Or did I just imagine that?
I have strong reservations about the name of London Zoo's invertebrate house (yes, I know there are other things in there besides invertebrates but essentially it's an invertebrate house. I mean to say...B.U.G.S! I wonder how many visitors realise what the initials stand for - "Biodiversity Underpinning Global Survival" - and fewer still would understand what it means. Mind you, its former name, "Web of Life", was no better, as it gave no clue to what kind of animals were displayed within and in fact didn't sound like an animal house at all.
Above all, I like exhibit names to be imaginative. One of the most imaginatively named, in my opinion, is Tiger Taiga (Colchester Zoo's Amur Tiger enclosure).
zoogeekmaelstrom
Well-Known Member
Kangaroo Roundabout is an exhibit name that zoo fans will always get peeved up if seen
I am pretty open-minded about exhibit names. I generally like biome/ecosystem-based names or the old taxonomic style when it fits.
I do think if it's an exhibit with only one or two animals, the name should be fairly straightforward. I'm not a fan of 'The Edge' as Denver's tiger exhibit name because it's so vague and doesn't really allude to an animal or habitat - it could be anything. I can excuse it when there's more than one animal, or perhaps if there was an obscure animal and it was meant to draw attention.
Of course, then you have multi-species complexes named for a star animal. I generally would think or say to avoid this, but I'll admit there's some examples I don't mind, usually when the star animal takes up the majority of the exhibit space. If they are one of many animals in similar space it feels more 'forced' to me.
I do think if it's an exhibit with only one or two animals, the name should be fairly straightforward. I'm not a fan of 'The Edge' as Denver's tiger exhibit name because it's so vague and doesn't really allude to an animal or habitat - it could be anything. I can excuse it when there's more than one animal, or perhaps if there was an obscure animal and it was meant to draw attention.
Of course, then you have multi-species complexes named for a star animal. I generally would think or say to avoid this, but I'll admit there's some examples I don't mind, usually when the star animal takes up the majority of the exhibit space. If they are one of many animals in similar space it feels more 'forced' to me.
Personally, I really dislike it when a zoo names an enclosure after a geographical area while hardly showing any species from that area.
Cobi
Well-Known Member
Looking back over this thread I thought about Minnesota Zoo’s Russia’s Grizzly Coast given the current war and sanctions.
I like names that do give you some idea of what to expect but also show some originality at the same time.
One of my local zoos, Marwell, has developed a recent habit of giving exhibits names that don't tell you anything about it. I am not a fan of this naming style. For example, "Wild Explorers" (white rhinos, grevy's zebra and scimitar horned oryx) or their new exhibit opening later this year "Thriving Through Nature". No idea what to expect.
To be fair though they have had some names that I liked, for example, "Aridlands" for a desert house, "Roof of the World" for Himalayan animals and "Life Among the Trees" for arboreal animals. All descriptive and original (or at least I can't think of other similarly named exhibits).
Some names have become cliched because of the number of times they are used. Just how many African Savannahs, Hearts of Africa or Madagascars are there? I wonder if that is just something us zoo nerds will notice though.
I am not particularly fond of alliteration in names, for example London's "Land of the Lions".Although I do like Chester's "Realm of the Red Ape". Maybe because their is some originality in not using the species name but at the same time telling you exactly what it is.
One of my local zoos, Marwell, has developed a recent habit of giving exhibits names that don't tell you anything about it. I am not a fan of this naming style. For example, "Wild Explorers" (white rhinos, grevy's zebra and scimitar horned oryx) or their new exhibit opening later this year "Thriving Through Nature". No idea what to expect.
To be fair though they have had some names that I liked, for example, "Aridlands" for a desert house, "Roof of the World" for Himalayan animals and "Life Among the Trees" for arboreal animals. All descriptive and original (or at least I can't think of other similarly named exhibits).
Some names have become cliched because of the number of times they are used. Just how many African Savannahs, Hearts of Africa or Madagascars are there? I wonder if that is just something us zoo nerds will notice though.
I am not particularly fond of alliteration in names, for example London's "Land of the Lions".Although I do like Chester's "Realm of the Red Ape". Maybe because their is some originality in not using the species name but at the same time telling you exactly what it is.
Birdsage
Well-Known Member
I do not have a problem with that term, as it is also an accepted term in biogeography (think Neotropical realm).