List of species I've seen

[dillotest0]

I've only ever seen Virginia Opossum once, at Cedars Nature Centre. [the animal is no longer there, they have short lifespans] That is to say, that's not very representative of how common it is in captivity!

 

[Kakapo]

At least Great Argus reasoned his reply, even when his last phrase is still incorrect. But that's zillion times better that just accusing me to do something I never did, as Chlidonias do straightly.

I also would like to signal a point, as we talked about snapping turtles. The rarity of a sight in a zoo is not exactly the rarity of a species held. Snapping turtles tend to be no-shows especially when they live in outdoor ponds. A species kept in every zoo but difficult to spot counts as rare as a species much less widely kept but easy to spot. That's why giant pandas were listed much earlier than alligator turtles.

Trying again to rail the thread:

ASIAN WILD ASS

Photo by @bongowwf. Hai Bar Yotveta, Israel

ASP VIPER

Photo by @TeaLovingDave. Alpine zoo Innsbruck, Austria

ATLANTIC HORSE MACKEREL

Photo by @Hanjo. Nordsøen Oceanarium, Denmark

ATLANTIC MUDSKIPPER

Photo by @Hanjo. Tropikariet Helsingborg, Sweden

ATLANTIC PUFFIN

Photo by @Daniel Sörensen. Tierpark Hagenbeck, Germany

ATLANTIC SPADEFISH

Photo by @RatioTile. New England aquarium, USA

ATLAS MOTH

Photo by @vogelcommando. Dierenpark de Oliemeulen, Netherlands

 

[Kakapo]

Another new species for the Gallery:
AUSTRALIAN COCKROACH

Photo by @Kakapo. Aqua Terra zoo, Austria

AUSTRALIAN LUNGFISH

Photo by @Lucas Lang. Shedd aquarium, USA

AUSTRALIAN PELICAN

Photo by @Therabu. Weltvogelpark Walsrode, Germany

AUSTRALIAN PINEAPPLEFISH

Photo by @Dormitator. Crocus city oceanarium, Russia

AUSTRALIAN SHOVELER

Photo by @Chlidonias. Nga Manu nature reserve, New Zealand

AUSTRALIAN WATER DRAGON

Photo by @gentle lemur. Hamerton zoo park, UK

AUSTRALIAN WATER RAT

Photo by @Giant Eland. Territory wildlife park, Australia

 

[Kakapo]

BABIRUSA

Photo by @Tim May. ZSL London zoo, UK

BAER'S POCHARD

Photo by @gentle lemur. Chester zoo, UK

BALE MOUNTAINS ADDER

Photo by @Coelacanth18. Los Angeles zoo & botanical garden, USA

BANDED CICHLID

Photo by @Kakapo. Acuario de Zaragoza, Spain

BANDED CORAL SHRIMP

Photo by @Hix. Oceanworld Manly, Australia

BANDED KING SHOEMAKER

Photo by @Kakapo. Artis royal zoo, Netherlands

BANDED ORANGE HELICONIAN

Photo by @Hipporex. Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, USA

BANDED-LEGGED GOLDEN ORB-WEB SPIDER

Photo by @zoogiraffe. NiederRheinPark Plantaria, Germany

 

[Kakapo]

BARKING DEER

Photo by @gust1. Kuwait zoo, Kuwait

BARRED PARAKEET

Photo by @Andrew_NZP. Smithsonian national zoo, USA

BEARDED PIG

Photo by @twilighter. Berlin zoo, Germany

BEAUTIFUL FRUIT DOVE

Photo by @Daniel Sörensen. Weltvogelpark Walsrode, Germany

BEISA ORYX

Photo by @red river hog. Six flags wild safari, USA

BELUGA

Photo by @bubblywums. Vancouver aquarium, Canada

BERMUDA ANGELFISH

Photo by @Moebelle. Newport aquarium, USA

 

[Hix]

Apologies if it's been asked and answered before but how many zoos/aquariums/fauna parks have you visited?



Hix

 

[RatioTile]

“Barking Deer” is a pretty general common name. And if you want to say “Indian Muntjac,” that’s 2 species now - Northern Red Muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) and Southern Red Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak).

 

[Kakapo]

Hix: There is no need for apologize for an educated and non offensive reply to this post - unlike some others in this thread. Here you have the list of zoos I've been into - slightly outdated since it's from 2020 so two Austrian facilities (Haus des Meeres and Tiergarten Schönbrunn) must be added.

RatioTile: Sometimes I'm obligated to use some more generic common names when no better ones are available (because they're that: common names, hence just ornaments without rules), but that's not the case of Barking deer, that designates especifically only one species, Muntiacus muntjack. Chinese muntjack is listed under that latter common name earlier in the thread. Obviously a so absolutely absurd abomination as is spliting one species into an invented false one and a real one is a ridiculous falsehood. Never existed and never will exist such a thing as "muntiacus vaginalis".

BICOLOUR PARROTFISH

Photo by @gentle lemur. National marine aquarium, UK

BIG-HEADED POND TURTLE

Photo by @KevinB. Pairi Daiza, Belgium

BLACK CROWNED CRANE

Photo by @Therabu. Weltvogelpark Walsrode, Germany

BLACK KITE

Photo by @KevinB. Vogelpark Avifauna, Netherlands

BLACK LORY

Photo by @Zooish. Jurong bird park, Singapore

 

[Kakapo]

BLACK RHINOCEROS

Photo by @Fallax. Chester zoo, UK

BLACK SCORPIONFISH

Photo by @vogelcommando. Antalya aquarium, Turkey

BLACK SEABREAM

Photo by @vogelcommando. Antalya aquarium, Turkey

BLACK SPIDER MONKEY

Photo by @Giant Eland. Brookfield zoo, USA

BLACK TEGU

Photo by @Fishapod. Budapest zoo and botanical garden, Hungary

BLACK TETRA

Photo by @vogelcommando. Almere jungle, Netherlands

BLACK TREE MONITOR

Photo by @Dormitator. Cotswold wildlife park and gardens, UK

 

[RatioTile]

Taxonomic splits happen all the time, why would anyone split a species without evidence? From the following paper:

1.1. Muntiacus vaginalis
The species Muntiacus vaginalis is commonly known as the red muntjac or barking muntjac. Before 2003, this species was considered a subspecies of the southern red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjac Zimmermann, 1780), but it is now considered an independent species, the northern red muntjac. Muntiacus vaginalis is distributed across Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Himalayas, and southern China [12]. In contrast, the southern red muntjac (M. muntjac) is only distributed across the Sunda Islands in Indonesia. The demarcation line between southern and northern red muntjacs is located in the Khokhok Kra Strait, Thailand. Northern red muntjacs live north of the strait, and southern red muntjacs live south of the strait [1,3,4,12,13].
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/21/2909
Morphological, Phaneroptic, Habitat and Population Description of Three Muntjac Species in a Tibetan Nature Reserve

Also, what is a “big-headed pond turtle?” That photo’s clearly not Platysternon megacephalum.

 

[Sicarius]

bviously a so absolutely absurd abomination as is spliting one species into an invented false one and a real one is a ridiculous falsehood. Never existed and never will exist such a thing as "muntiacus vaginalis".

As long as you have not published any scientific papers with taxonomic and genetic research that backs up your statements, I don't think you are to decide if this species is valid or not. Your refusal to accept new developments in this line of work is entirely your own decision. Still, I think the permanent spreading of false information across this forum should stop at once. It is starting to confuse and annoy several members that I have talked to.

 

[Aardwolf]

Big-headed turtle can be used for P. megacephalum (Asian big-headed turtle) or Erymnochelys madagascariensis (Madagascar big-headed turtle), and less-commonly for Acanthochelys macrocephala (Pantanal big-headed turtle), or Peltocephalus dumerilianus (Amazon big-headed turtle)... truly a testament to how unoriginal herpetological common nomenclature can be.

 

[Maguari]

RatioTile: Sometimes I'm obligated to use some more generic common names when no better ones are available (because they're that: common names, hence just ornaments without rules), but that's not the case of Barking deer, that designates especifically only one species, Muntiacus muntjack. Chinese muntjack is listed under that latter common name earlier in the thread. Obviously a so absolutely absurd abomination as is spliting one species into an invented false one and a real one is a ridiculous falsehood. Never existed and never will exist such a thing as "muntiacus vaginalis".

In general use 'barking deer' is usually just a synonym for 'muntjac' - i.e. would refer to the genus Muntiacus as a whole. Zootierliste does use it for the entry for Muntiacus muntjak (sensu lato) but that's not standard usage. Muntiacus muntjak (s.l.) was almost always 'Indian Muntjac' or 'Indian Barking Deer' (certainly in British English) - Northern Red and Southern Red are the standards for the two species as now understood. A complication for Zootierliste is that I'm not sure if the wild origins of the zoo animals are consistent or even known.

And - well, I think you and I have been over the topic of your attitude to taxonomic research often enough previously, so I won't comment too much further, except to note that the force of your language here ('absurd', 'ridiculous', 'falsehood' etc) is not going to make the argument go away when others believe you are being factually incorrect - and as I have said before, if you aren't going use up-to-date taxonomy on a website full of taxonomy nerds you do have to expect it to be challenged.

 

[Kakapo]

RatioTile: Why should, rather than why would. Because vast majority of spilts are indeed done without evidence, and in a basis of just an informatic program without any need of knowlegde on zoology. And I can't see any evidence regarding your dramatic ridiculous change purpose for this species in the article you linked to me. Why I should accept such a change and fight againts the whole world and against all science of the world without evidence? I don't, contrarily to most zoochatters that just prefair to follow blindly any nonsensic invention and deprecate all scientist of the world. Instead, I will continue to defend correct, non incredibly absurd and updated taxonomy, not the modern antitaxonomy that you like.

Big-headed pond turtle is Mauremys reevesii.

Sicarius, I agree that the permanent spreading of false information across this forum should stop at once, but you should tell that to members that do it, like yourself, that spreads false information about the generic taxonomy of mullets, for example. By the contrary, I only spread true information as I always did.

Maguari: if even a well known public source such as Zootierliste uses is as the common name for that species, then is an absolutely perfect common name for use in any circle for this species. I'm starting to think that many zoochatters and most that have written in this thread just likes to complain and attack members by pleasure or sport even when there can't be the minimal shade of a reasoning for do it.

If others believe that I'm factually incorrect, is their problem since I'm not. The site is full of anti-taxonomy nerds, but I doubt it can be said really is full of taxonomy nerds - I myself am the only taxonomy nerd I know here. If you find here any other person that never will call Ouroborus to what is obviously Cordylus, Pica hudsonia to what is obviously Pica pica or Osphranter to what is obviously Macropus, for example, and that deprecate strongly those that do it, then there will be another taxonomy nerd here.

And I used just common names in this thread for avoid taxonomic confrontation!!!!!! How would be if I used true or scientific names instead???

 

[TinoPup]

RatioTile: Why should, rather than why would. Because vast majority of spilts are indeed done without evidence, and in a basis of just an informatic program without any need of knowlegde on zoology. And I can't see any evidence regarding your dramatic ridiculous change purpose for this species in the article you linked to me. Why I should accept such a change and fight againts the whole world and against all science of the world without evidence? I don't, contrarily to most zoochatters that just prefair to follow blindly any nonsensic invention and deprecate all scientist of the world. Instead, I will continue to defend correct, non incredibly absurd and updated taxonomy, not the modern antitaxonomy that you like.

Big-headed pond turtle is Mauremys reevesii.

Sicarius, I agree that the permanent spreading of false information across this forum should stop at once, but you should tell that to members that do it, like yourself, that spreads false information about the generic taxonomy of mullets, for example. By the contrary, I only spread true information as I always did.

Maguari: if even a well known public source such as Zootierliste uses is as the common name for that species, then is an absolutely perfect common name for use in any circle for this species. I'm starting to think that many zoochatters and most that have written in this thread just likes to complain and attack members by pleasure or sport even when there can't be the minimal shade of a reasoning for do it.

If others believe that I'm factually incorrect, is their problem since I'm not. The site is full of anti-taxonomy nerds, but I doubt it can be said really is full of taxonomy nerds - I myself am the only taxonomy nerd I know here. If you find here any other person that never will call Ouroborus to what is obviously Cordylus, Pica hudsonia to what is obviously Pica pica or Osphranter to what is obviously Macropus, for example, and that deprecate strongly those that do it, then there will be another taxonomy nerd here.

And I used just common names in this thread for avoid taxonomic confrontation!!!!!! How would be if I used true or scientific names instead???

What do you consider evidence? What would be enough to make you follow a split done in the last 30 years?

There are plenty of proposed splits that ZC as a whole, as well as the major related organizations, don't follow.

 

[Kakapo]

I consider evidence when a taxon looks like really worthy of a new status, it's generally accepted since long ago by everybody, and it's based in non-molecular features. For example, when Mitu and Pauxi was split from Crax I accepted that (some years later) because it seemed logic to me. When Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae where lumped (in general, lumping seemed easier to accept than spilting, but not always) I accepted it because it seemed logic. When two independent researchers concluded at same time that Iberian and Asian azure-winged magpies were two cryptic species I accepted it becauce I readed about the circunstances of the spilt and it seemed logical in what I've readed. I even accepted the division of Chrysoperla lacewings into cryptic species basically differenciated by the courthsip sound, having readed from the hand of quite good neuropteran experts and found logic in that. But something so absurd as spilt Gekkonidae into various families (Eublepharidae??? Sphaerodactylidae??? really??) or lump all stapelioids in genus Ceropegia (really???) is something beyond the comprension of any taxonomy nerd like me.

 

[TinoPup]

I consider evidence when a taxon looks like really worthy of a new status, it's generally accepted since long ago by everybody, and it's based in non-molecular features. For example, when Mitu and Pauxi was split from Crax I accepted that (some years later) because it seemed logic to me. When Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae where lumped (in general, lumping seemed easier to accept than spilting, but not always) I accepted it because it seemed logic. When two independent researched concluded at same time that Iberian and Asian azure-winged magpies were two cryptic species I accepted it becauce I readed about the circunstances of the spilt and it seemed logical in what I've readed. But something so absurd as spilt Gekkonidae into various families (Eublepharidae??? Sphaerodactylidae??? really??) or lump all stapelioids in genus Ceropegia (really???) is something beyond the comprension of any taxonomy nerd like me.

That helps us understand your position a bit more, thank you. Why do you not accept genetic related splits? What makes a taxon "worthy" of a split? I understand where you're coming from on wanting something to have been accepted for a long time, but look at how far science has come. DNA itself was only identified in 1929, and it wasn't really known what it was. Should scientists stop trying to make progress and learn?

 

[Chlidonias]

RatioTile: Why should, rather than why would. Because vast majority of spilts are indeed done without evidence, and in a basis of just an informatic program without any need of knowlegde on zoology. And I can't see any evidence regarding your dramatic ridiculous change purpose for this species in the article you linked to me. Why I should accept such a change and fight againts the whole world and against all science of the world without evidence? I don't, contrarily to most zoochatters that just prefair to follow blindly any nonsensic invention and deprecate all scientist of the world. Instead, I will continue to defend correct, non incredibly absurd and updated taxonomy, not the modern antitaxonomy that you like.

Big-headed pond turtle is Mauremys reevesii.

Sicarius, I agree that the permanent spreading of false information across this forum should stop at once, but you should tell that to members that do it, like yourself, that spreads false information about the generic taxonomy of mullets, for example. By the contrary, I only spread true information as I always did.

Maguari: if even a well known public source such as Zootierliste uses is as the common name for that species, then is an absolutely perfect common name for use in any circle for this species. I'm starting to think that many zoochatters and most that have written in this thread just likes to complain and attack members by pleasure or sport even when there can't be the minimal shade of a reasoning for do it.

If others believe that I'm factually incorrect, is their problem since I'm not. The site is full of anti-taxonomy nerds, but I doubt it can be said really is full of taxonomy nerds - I myself am the only taxonomy nerd I know here. If you find here any other person that never will call Ouroborus to what is obviously Cordylus, Pica hudsonia to what is obviously Pica pica or Osphranter to what is obviously Macropus, for example, and that deprecate strongly those that do it, then there will be another taxonomy nerd here.

And I used just common names in this thread for avoid taxonomic confrontation!!!!!! How would be if I used true or scientific names instead???

Just ignoring all the rest of this post, with regards to "Big-headed pond turtle is Mauremys reevesii" I have never in my life heard this common name for this species. Looking on ZTL I see that they use it but otherwise never. Googling that full name mostly just gives me results for Platysternon.

And, related question, why do you consider ZTL such a definite source for common names (e.g. "if even a well known public source such as Zootierliste uses is as the common name for that species, then is an absolutely perfect common name for use in any circle for this species") - but the taxonomy that ZTL follows is somehow the opposite? For example, they use Osphranter rufus which according to you is anti-taxonomy.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

And, related question, why do you consider ZTL such a definite source for common names (e.g. "if even a well known public source such as Zootierliste uses is as the common name for that species, then is an absolutely perfect common name for use in any circle for this species")

Several of the English common names used on ZTL are translations of the German-language common names, rather than the actual English-language common names - Mauremys reevesii being discussed is actually a fairly clear example, as an alternative German-language name for this species is given as "Chinesische Dickkopf-Schildkröte", which translates directly to "Chinese Fat-headed Turtle", whilst the German-language name for Platysternon megacephalum is "Chinesische Großkopf-Schildkröte" or "Chinese Big-headed Turtle". Note the subtle difference! However, on ZTL both have then been translated into English as "Big-headed Turtle", when the alternative name is specific to German and doesn't carry over. Moreover, certain species have persistent spelling errors within their entries even when the name being presented is (theoretically) correct, for instance the entry for Transcaspian Urial labelled as Transcapian Urial. I wonder whether Kakapo would insist that the ZTL name for *this* taxon is accurate, purely because the website is a "well-known public source"

I do also find it rather amusing that Kakapo insists that those who disagree with him are "deprecating all the scientists in the world" and that he is defending these scientists from our assaults, when he regularly casts aspersions about the sanity and cognitive faculties of the vast majority of zoological professionals and scientists presently active and publishing research.... and has even suggested that modern taxonomists are supporters of scientific racism.

 

[Kakapo]

BLACK-BILLED AMAZON

Photo by @Tomek. Tiergarten Schönbrunn, Austria

BLACK-BREASTED LEAF TURTLE

Photo by @RatioTile. Bronx zoo, Germany

BLACK-BREASTED THRUSH

Photo by @Ding Lingwei. Beijing zoo, China

BLACK-CASQUED HORNBILL

Photo by @vogelcommando. Dierenpark Zie-ZOO, Netherlands

BLACK-COLLARED STARLING

Photo by @Ding Lingwei. San Diego zoo, USA

BLACK-FACED IBIS

Photo by @KevinB. Planckendael, Belgium

BLACK-FINNED CLOWNFISH

Photo by @vogelcommando. Palais de la Porte Dorée aquarium, France