There are a number of other species first scientifically described by Sir Stamford Raffles including binturong, siamang, crab-eating macaque, silvered leaf monkey, large tree shrew.....
ZSL London Zoo London Zoo discussion thread
- Thread starter Fallax
- Start date
The moonrat that we both remember seeing in the Clore Pavilion was acquired in 1971. London Zoo also had an earlier moonrat, obtained in 1956.
He also owned the holotype clouded leopard, at some stage, I believe, though it was formally described by Edward Griffith. I think this must have been the individual that ended its days in a travelling menagerie in the North of England and was subsequently made into a hat.
I remember seeing binturongs in the Round House and a large tree shrew in the Clore Pavilion a few decades ago
Basel Zoo is slightly smaller, and manages to hold both hippopotamus species, African Elephant, Greater One-horned Rhinoceros, Giraffe in more than adequate surroundings. Much of their exhibitry puts ZSL in the shade.
Reptile House
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t want to see Elephants again at London Zoo, nor any Rhinoceros. It is too small. Not many zoos have a road run through it and a canal too.
I was looking on Google maps at my earlier suggestion and developing the area around the Mappins terrace and the associated buildings, would give a lot of land. Also the greenhouses on the north bank could be used as an exhibition area,
I was looking on Google maps at my earlier suggestion and developing the area around the Mappins terrace and the associated buildings, would give a lot of land. Also the greenhouses on the north bank could be used as an exhibition area,
I know that is why they were moved to the more spacious pastures of the country home at Whipsnade Zoo
@FBBird: I couldn't wrote it better myself. It's a real shame what happen to London Zoo species/collection-wise. And don't tell me it has not enough space as long as there is so much wasted for unnecessary ethno and deco elements as in Land of the Lions and other parts of the zoo. And why not eliminate "activy den" and some lawns for new animal exhibits?
I was once (in the late 1980s, early 1990s) a big fan of London Zoo. But now....
I was once (in the late 1980s, early 1990s) a big fan of London Zoo. But now....
Have a look at Basel….
cerperal
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the fact Whipsnade exists makes that a pointless comparison. London moved all* their large animals there so as to provide them with far superior environments, especially in the case of the elephants. London will never, and beyond all else SHOULD never, hold the large animals that have left. The small giraffe group is kept mainly due to the exceptional husbandry, but London's focus has been and likely will be for the future on smaller species. I've never visited Basel, but if it is smaller than London I'm sorry it is simply not possible your claim about their exhibitry is true. London and Whipsnade come as a pair, and should be taken as such.
*The African section being the key exception - the giraffe and zebra groups are small and the okapi is clearly well suited to its exhibit due to their breeding success.
The last time I went to Basel, it seemed that 30% of it was used for farm animals
This just adds to the calamity of issues with the current site. I don’t hold the same amount of sentimentality about the place as others, and I wouldn’t want to offend, but the site is just awful. Canal, road, listed buildings.
imo in the long term they should try and bring rhinos back, but they’d need to expand significantly.
Perhaps you could take them together if Whipsnade was in London, ala Tierpark, but it isn’t. It’s in Bedfordshire.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
My point isn't to take the collections together at surface level. It's that to undersand the choices at London, you need to understand that Whipsnade has given ZSL the option of holding large ABC species in far superior habitats instead of completely redesigning the zoo. There are plenty of things London can catch criticism for but the idea it's somehow a crime it lacks megafauna is, I'm sorry, utterly mad.
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
No, it definitely can be true. I also haven't visited Basel, but a British example would be Colchester, who claim to be 24 hectares (60 acres), compared to London's 14.5 (36), but, unlike London, the zoo includes undeveloped space and car park in its measurement. Measuring it out manually with an area calculator tool gives an area of 12.9 hectares (32 acres), noticeably smaller than London.
Yet, Colchester manages to display elephants, rhinos, giraffes, tigers, lions, leopards, cheetahs, chimpanzees, orangutans, sea lions, bears, wolves, pygmy hippos and many more large mammals (it may be the most comprehensive collection of large mammals in the UK, in fact).
The problem is that, unlike Colchester, a much newer zoo, London wasn't built with space efficiency in mind. They accepted a site with a canal and a road in the centre, built several large structures, which are expensive (and now illegal due to being listed) to demolish or rebuild, and have all the remaining open spaces to sparse to be connected for future exhibits. Area doesn't impact the quality of a zoo - management of said area, on the other hand, does.
And, for the record, Whipsnade's existence doesn't make it a pointless comparison at all. For people like us who view ZSL as one entity and visit both regularly, maybe. But if you are an average visitor, you have to pay double the price to visit both zoos, and bare in mind that Whipsnade isn't all that easy to reach by public transport.
You are completely right in saying that lacking megafauna is not a crime. I respect London's focus on smaller endangered species. However, size is certainly not a valid reason as to why they don't house any megafauna.
Frankly, London zoo currently needs much work to get even into top 20 zoos in the country.
The zoos history exists no more. Old buildings are unremarkable compared to historic giants from similarly old European and American zoos. Most are modernistic ones from the time much after it was the country's best zoo. At one point zoo said it does not want big animals, but will excel in small animals. Then it closed two biggest small animal houses, too.
Maybe the zoo makes lots of money on renting to private parties and is no longer interested in either animals or visitors?
This institution needs to import new management with fresh experience from some good zoo abroad. Others already pointed examples of other small zoos with historic structures which have two leagues better animal collection and visitor experience. To Basel I would add Cologne, both Paris zoos, Vienna, Berlin Zoo, Wroclaw, Antwerp, Amsterdam... There are lots of examples how old listed historical zoo buildings were redesigned to be modern exhibits for completely different animals.
Last edited:
cerperal
Well-Known Member
And when was Colchester constructed, and how much of it is listed? The original post was very specific in noting ZSL as the comparison regardless.
See this I completely agree with. Apologies if the point I was trying to make hasn't come across, but it's not that London can't house megafauna but that the view of ZSL that I completely agree with is that if they have another zoo that can hold them in far better conditions then that is the correct approach.
Again, my point was that accusing ZSL of grievous incompetence because they don't house elephants (eg) at London is not a fair comparison because that decision was not taken in a vacuum.
I recall my last visit to London was in 2021.
I recall what was at the zoo in regards to animals was good. The loss of the Aquarium [which I had visited in 2016] was a bit sad, but understandable. [Now I do quite wish Biota came to fruition…] But even so, I felt there was a real feeling of empty space. The zoo is small, but wasn’t using the space it had to full potential.
I am happy enough with the proposed model for London to be small animal centric. There may well be an eternal question here somewhere … along the lines of ‘could London Zoo, theoretically, with what space it has, build a serviceable [large mammal] enclosure? My answer to this is a tentative ‘yes’ - but then it is a moot point - Whipsnade has far superior large animal enclosures than London is capable of building. But then with smaller animals even, I feel that London has much potential to expand. I find it a similar position to what Marwell was in during some portion of the 2010s - one of stagnation - but as Marwell has shown more recently, stagnation need not be a permanent state. And aside from Beisa oryx which arrived last year, it has not introduced much in the words of megafauna, or traditional hoof stock - but what it has done is bring in new [or in some cases, after years, returning] small animals to add to the visitor experience. And so far, it seems, so good! …but I digress. The Aquarium [and soon-to-be-disused-too Reptile House] could definitely have new interesting exhibits methinks - certainly at the least something somewhat more intriguing than what the Aquarium has become now. The lawn close to the flamingo area feels quite abandoned, but still I think that a small animal exhibit, or at least a few, could change the atmosphere here entirely. And I’m not even explicitly noting any old buildings London would have to destroy for this to take place - though in hindsight, that would definitely help if they were allowed to !
If London wants small animal centrism, then that is great, methinks. Can it become one of the best zoos in the UK with the current megafauna it has and still remain small animal centric? I do think that is possible. But it does have quite a way to come to achieve that!
I recall what was at the zoo in regards to animals was good. The loss of the Aquarium [which I had visited in 2016] was a bit sad, but understandable. [Now I do quite wish Biota came to fruition…] But even so, I felt there was a real feeling of empty space. The zoo is small, but wasn’t using the space it had to full potential.
I am happy enough with the proposed model for London to be small animal centric. There may well be an eternal question here somewhere … along the lines of ‘could London Zoo, theoretically, with what space it has, build a serviceable [large mammal] enclosure? My answer to this is a tentative ‘yes’ - but then it is a moot point - Whipsnade has far superior large animal enclosures than London is capable of building. But then with smaller animals even, I feel that London has much potential to expand. I find it a similar position to what Marwell was in during some portion of the 2010s - one of stagnation - but as Marwell has shown more recently, stagnation need not be a permanent state. And aside from Beisa oryx which arrived last year, it has not introduced much in the words of megafauna, or traditional hoof stock - but what it has done is bring in new [or in some cases, after years, returning] small animals to add to the visitor experience. And so far, it seems, so good! …but I digress. The Aquarium [and soon-to-be-disused-too Reptile House] could definitely have new interesting exhibits methinks - certainly at the least something somewhat more intriguing than what the Aquarium has become now. The lawn close to the flamingo area feels quite abandoned, but still I think that a small animal exhibit, or at least a few, could change the atmosphere here entirely. And I’m not even explicitly noting any old buildings London would have to destroy for this to take place - though in hindsight, that would definitely help if they were allowed to !
If London wants small animal centrism, then that is great, methinks. Can it become one of the best zoos in the UK with the current megafauna it has and still remain small animal centric? I do think that is possible. But it does have quite a way to come to achieve that!