Regional Differences in Species/Subspecies Signage

[iloveyourzoos]

I've been reading the excellent "Subspecies held in the USA, for ZTL" thread with great interest, and found myself with a lot of questions as a newbie. However, most of these are more historical, sociological, or "meta" questions, so I thought it best to place them in a new thread so that I don't derail the important taxonomical and identification focus of the original.

My general sense from that thread is that for the general public relying on "Seen and Signed" in a North American, USA or AZA context may not be as accurate or specific (or as accurately sub-specific) as it would be for a member of the general public relying on signs in a European or EAZA context. The thread lists inconsistencies occurring both from North American zoos whose signage claims subspecies that they know they don't actually have (reticulated giraffes), and from signs only claiming animals at a species level even when they know internally that they're actually holding a pure subspecies (SSP lions, sandcats).

I guess my first question is whether I've gotten the right impression that the actual zoo signs are less accurate or specific in North Armerica than in Europe? Or is it more that ZTL has had time to work through the inaccuracies and subspecies clarifications in Europe slowly over many years, while the North American ones are all appearing at once?. (ie. Is this a consistent and recognizable difference between the signage of the two regions, or more of a momentary data entry bottleneck?)

If the signs are indeed different between the two regions, I'd be interested in learning more about why/how this came about. Is this a relatively new development in Europe that America just hasn't caught up to? Or is it a long-standing divergence in the way the two regions sign things? Is it the result of legislation? EAZA rules and standard? A more scientific approach? Or simply tradition? Did Europe invest more (or earlier) in genetic testing? Or is this a rare positive side effect of having more zoos that date back to the old menagerie approach, where the collection culture might place a higher value on being sub-specific about one's holdings? Or does it trace back to imports from the various colonies that then stayed mostly in one country, rather than being shipped back and forth across the continent? Did sharing animals across the whole of North America leave them with more generic mixes than Europe had? Is the lack of subspecific signage because North America had fewer pure subspecies (either now or at some point in the past)? Or is it simply North American zoos having lower expectations of the public, or being less ambitious about what they think their public cares about or can understand?

And finally, I'm interested in hearing how all this compares to other regions. Do signs in Australian and ZAA zoos more closely follow the European or American model when it comes to subspecies? What about Asia? South America? Africa? I haven't seen long threads about the challenge of getting those zoos into ZTL, so does the thread of caveats and notes for North America mean that region has more inaccuracies in its signage than Australia or Asia, for example? Or is it simply that zoochat has more North American experts who are able to suggest what the correct/corrected subspecies should actually be, while in another region it may be less clear what the right answer is?

All of this is asked from a place of pure curiosity. I'm very appreciative of all the folks who are working hard to make ZTL work on an international level. So my questions are more about trying to understand how we got here, whereas the identification questions in the original thread are more about where we are!

 

[JVM]

I cannot draw comparisons as my visit to Europe is in the near future, but I am willing to compare signage between local facilities and those I have visited otherwise in the United States.

• Brookfield's signs tend to be only species level. The Puerto Rican boa is listed as Epicrates inornatus for example, but the recent signage for Arabian sand cat is full Felis margarita harrisoni
• Lincoln Park Zoo uses almost solely species level, such as Hypotaenidia owstoni for Guam rail and Anolis smallwoodi for Oirnete Knight Anole
  
• Milwaukee uses a little of both; mostly species level, such as Pongo pygmaeus on the main sign for their hybrid orangutan, but a nearby sign lists the full species for all three orangutan species; a sign for both of the zoo's Flamingo species uses Phoenicopterus ruber ruber for Caribbean flamingo but Phoenicopterus chilensis for Chilean flamingo,
  
• Saint Louis Zoo also uses species level pretty consistently, such as the Malayan gharial at Tomistoma schlegelli and Elegant crested tinamou at Eudromia elegans
  
• Racine Zoo uses a little of both favoring species level, with Fennec Fox for example signed as Vulpes zerda, but Eastern Black Rhinoceros listed properly as Diceros bicornis michaeli
  
• Henson Robinson Zoo (Springfield, IL) uses the species level for all animals - Ateles fusciceps for the Black-Headed Spider Monkey, Gulgu gulo for Eurasian Wolverine,
  
• The Denver Zoo uses Lampropeltis getula floridana for the Florida Kingsnake, but the Black Tree Monitor is Varanus beccari and Phillipine sailfin lizard is Hydrosaurus pustulatus

These are all based specifically on signs I have photographed.

 

[Chlidonias]

I cannot draw comparisons as my visit to Europe is in the near future, but I am willing to compare signage between local facilities and those I have visited otherwise in the United States.

• Brookfield's signs tend to be only species level. The Puerto Rican boa is listed as Epicrates inornatus for example, but the recent signage for Arabian sand cat is full Felis margarita harrisoni
• Lincoln Park Zoo uses almost solely species level, such as Hypotaenidia owstoni for Guam rail and Anolis smallwoodi for Oirnete Knight Anole
  
• Milwaukee uses a little of both; mostly species level, such as Pongo pygmaeus on the main sign for their hybrid orangutan, but a nearby sign lists the full species for all three orangutan species; a sign for both of the zoo's Flamingo species uses Phoenicopterus ruber ruber for Caribbean flamingo but Phoenicopterus chilensis for Chilean flamingo,
  
• Saint Louis Zoo also uses species level pretty consistently, such as the Malayan gharial at Tomistoma schlegelli and Elegant crested tinamou at Eudromia elegans
  
• Racine Zoo uses a little of both favoring species level, with Fennec Fox for example signed as Vulpes zerda, but Eastern Black Rhinoceros listed properly as Diceros bicornis michaeli
  
• Henson Robinson Zoo (Springfield, IL) uses the species level for all animals - Ateles fusciceps for the Black-Headed Spider Monkey, Gulgu gulo for Eurasian Wolverine,
  
• The Denver Zoo uses Lampropeltis getula floridana for the Florida Kingsnake, but the Black Tree Monitor is Varanus beccari and Phillipine sailfin lizard is Hydrosaurus pustulatus

These are all based specifically on signs I have photographed.

You've got a lot of species named there which are monotypic and you're saying "X zoo only lists these to species level" - what do you suggest they list them to?

 

[JVM]

You've got a lot of species named there which are monotypic and you're saying "X zoo only lists these to species level" - what do you suggest they list them to?

I was trying to answer what I thought was part of the OP's question based on what notes I had available. I was not trying to make a "suggestion". I obviously can't delete the post so I'll have to live with my stupid decision.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

@JVM I appreciate the attempt! As someone who is trying to figure this all out, it wouldn't have initially occurred to me either that the monotypic species might throw a bit of a wrench in the plan, since it seems it is not as easy as seeing if zoo signs have two or three latin parts, but then knowing the details of whether there are subspecies under that somewhere in the world.

I'm guessing that the species/subspecies listed in the original thread may be a good place to start, since we know that they needed an extra notice over there. But even then, it's still difficult to know since even a zoo that carefully lists subspecies may still have some animals that are listed at just the species level because that is indeed more correct -- if the particular individuals are generics or hybrids.

I'm going to try to try to look up some of the species in the galleries, to see if I notice a difference in European vs. North American signage. But I'm also hoping that there are people who just know from experience, since the underlying assumption seems pretty prevalent in the discussion.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I have almost no knowledge of what signage looks like for other continents' zoos, so I will simply answer your questions based on my own experience at US zoos and knowledge of how animals are managed here.

I think there are broadly two answers to your questions:

1) Yes, the fact that ZTL for the US has only been around ~6 weeks versus several years for Europe is meaningful. Many users making entries were not familiar with ZTL before, and there is a bit of a learning curve to editing. There is also a lack of consistency in how to enter things - both in what taxa are entered and in how sources or information is conveyed in entries. There has also not been enough time yet to correct all of the errors that have been created in the flood of entries made since early January. Much of this will sort itself out over time and with direct efforts from the American editors to find and correct mistakes.

2) As to how species and subspecies are signed in US zoos: it is variable, depending on the facility or even within different sections of the same facility. AFAIK there is no coordinated or nationwide approach to zoo signage or messaging; each facility is in charge of how it signs things. Sometimes species or even subspecies are signed correctly; sometimes they are not.

When species or subspecies are incorrectly signed, it is frequently one of three issues:
A) the taxonomy has changed and the sign has not been updated to reflect that;
B) a subspecies is listed that is no longer accurate; and
C) an animal is listed only to species level when a more specific designation is known.

A is pretty straightforward, it's just something that happens over time as taxonomy changes and signage is updated slowly.
B is something that happens relatively frequently here. It may be due to signage dating back to a time when animals were freshly imported and had known origin, but have since been deliberately mixed into a generic population or determined through DNA testing (a relatively new phenomenon) to not be of pure origin. Whether outdated signage is left up deliberately, cannot be changed easily or quickly, or is simply overlooked is something I don't know the answer to - and probably depends on the zoo in question.
C is something that happens as well, and for reasons that aren't really clear to me either. As an example, we have both Chinese and Nepalese red pandas here in the States; they are managed separately and look visually different, and yet in my experience very few zoos sign them as more than "Red Panda" or make any public statements that refer to them as a specific type. Again, whether this is an oversight or a deliberate messaging choice is beyond my knowledge - but it is something we know to be the case sometimes.

In general, most animals in US zoos are not signed to subspecies - whether they can be or not.

As for how ZTL entries are being made: it's a diverse mix. Some ZTL entries have been made at species level to reflect that lack of information; some entries have been made at subspecies level based on signage that is likely outdated/incorrect; some entries have been made at subspecies level based on visual identification; some entries have been made based on personal knowledge of species management or private communications with zoo professionals; and some entries have been made purely as guesses, either random or informed by how other people are entering that species. Few US entries note exactly how a subspecies identification was made, which IMO is a problem with notation: most people are providing very little information in their entries, making it hard to discern what is likely correct and what likely is incorrect or unverified.
There are people working to identify and correct these issues (myself included), but it will require time as well as discussion with the admins about the burden of proof needed to overwrite some of these errors and inconsistencies.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Thank you @Coelacanth18 ! This was very helpful to me. As a casual zoogoer and relatively new zoochatter, I am probably a bit naive still about zoo signs, and have tended to just believe whatever they told me! I still personally feel that it's a shame that the signs aren't always accurate, but suppose I can understand the reasons, especially for changes over time that you've described.

You've also given me enough courage to consider adding some missing entries for my local zoos. I've been hesitant to do so since I'm not a taxonomical expert. But I'm getting the sense that if I specifically note my sources (noting specifically that the species I'd be listing is based on what the zoo signed on the specific dates of my visits), that these could still be helpful, since the experts could then compare the signed accuracy versus the accuracy of other sources.

I'd also still love to hear from others from different regions to compare if things are done differently in different places. Particularly if they connect to different practices around regional management. (For example, if subspecies are easier to determine because the EEPs are more subspecific than SSPs, or something like that which makes the changes over time less of a frequent problem for signage).

 

[15399]

B is something that happens relatively frequently here. It may be due to signage dating back to a time when animals were freshly imported and had known origin, but have since been deliberately mixed into a generic population or determined through DNA testing (a relatively new phenomenon) to not be of pure origin. Whether outdated signage is left up deliberately, cannot be changed easily or quickly, or is simply overlooked is something I don't know the answer to - and probably depends on the zoo in question.
C is something that happens as well, and for reasons that aren't really clear to me either. As an example, we have both Chinese and Nepalese red pandas here in the States; they are managed separately and look visually different, and yet in my experience very few zoos sign them as more than "Red Panda" or make any public statements that refer to them as a specific type. Again, whether this is an oversight or a deliberate messaging choice is beyond my knowledge - but it is something we know to be the case sometimes.

At least in the zoos I'm most familiar with, signage is designed by a graphic designer in the education department, or maybe in some cases the operations department. I'd imagine that, while these people are professionals who are really great at what they do, something like subspecies may be overlooked since these aren't the same people super in-tune with regional population management, and may have a degree in a field such as graphic design instead of one of the biological sciences.

Subspecies is also something that I suspect, with a few exceptions (e.g., tigers), the average zoo visitor doesn't care about. It's a lot more important then to be emphasizing on a sign information about diet, conservation issues, and native range than it is any subspecies designation.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

@Neil chace You've hit on a lot of what interests me about the differences in regional signage. I assume that the European educators and graphic designers are also in a separate department than the hands-on population managers, so it's interesting to me that the other thread suggests that Europe does regularly keep subspecies more up to date, while North America doesn't.

From an outsiders persective, I don't know if this means that the Europeans are more granular and subspecific in their conservation efforts, or more focused on fewer or more specific native ranges in a way that is different than North American zoos?

And recognizing that the average zoo visitor in either region may not care about subspecies at all, it's interesting to me to think about why the eductors/graphic designers in Europe would feel that this is important information to include (regardless of whether the average people notice it), while the North Americans more often don't.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Subspecies is also something that I suspect, with a few exceptions (e.g., tigers), the average zoo visitor doesn't care about. It's a lot more important then to be emphasizing on a sign information about diet, conservation issues, and native range than it is any subspecies designation.

I'm not sure how much the average American visitor even cares about what species something is

But as good modern zoos are educational, scientific institutions - essentially living museums - IMO good signage should be taken as an important component of their mission. Whether most visitors will choose to read a sign or not shouldn't impact whether it has contemporary, accurate information on it. Most of the signage I see at zoos here has decent info and is visually appealing (you can certainly see the graphic design involved), but I think there is still room for improvement for a lot of zoos when it comes to the actual information being offered.

 

[Lafone]

@Neil chace You've hit on a lot of what interests me about the differences in regional signage. I assume that the European educators and graphic designers are also in a separate department than the hands-on population managers, so it's interesting to me that the other thread suggests that Europe does regularly keep subspecies more up to date, while North America doesn't.

From an outsiders persective, I don't know if this means that the Europeans are more granular and subspecific in their conservation efforts, or more focused on fewer or more specific native ranges in a way that is different than North American zoos?

And recognizing that the average zoo visitor in either region may not care about subspecies at all, it's interesting to me to think about why the eductors/graphic designers in Europe would feel that this is important information to include (regardless of whether the average people notice it), while the North Americans more often don't.

While the designers might work in a different department (in a small zoo that might be less departmental and down to a couple of people of course) the roles would be closely aligned just from the process of how producing signage / graphic design works anywhere.

The overall design (fonts, colours, approved graphics, position of the logo and standard layout) is likely to be a marketing / brand decision. They would decide what goes on a sign from sub species through Latin designation etc as the layout is going to be a template. Unlike in other industries I’d imagine the education department in a zoo also has a key role to play on what the messages in the signs should be (endangered statuses, conservation highlights etc). There would also be brand guidance / tone of voice etc.

Trends also change over time. Whipsnade in the U.K. for example used to add animal names to the signs but have stopped producing new signs like that regularly. So the wolverine signage has a general sign for the wolverines and a sign for the female with her name and more information on wolverines and no sign for the new male. ‘There’s only one!’ Folk tell their kids with confidence as two gallop past behind them.

Same for the bears. Means a bit more admin (removing the signs when the named chimps die or the tigers move on etc). They then added new named ones for the pandas. Not the otters.

Do visitors care? Not sure.

But the engagement with signage seems to me, on casual observation, to be longer when animals are named and / or a bit of ‘individual’ information is included. The holidaying lions from Africa Alive had name signs and people spent time identifying the individuals (and so more than 23 seconds at the enclosure, good for dwell time).

Once the template is complete though there has to be a source for the information. In a small zoo it might be a couple of people do the whole process so the informed person might be the one doing the signage anyway. In a large zoo however they probably have a DB or spreadsheet they get each part of the collection to fill in. It’s not that logical they would not consult the animal teams for the content so the process is probably pretty tightly aligned. It’s going to be a per collection decision on whether sub species is viewed as more important than other information that would compete for sign space.

What you do see, at least in U.K. zoos I’ve visited, is there is usually consistency within a zoo on signage in terms of animal information, but not really between zoos. Some give more taxanomic information than others but most get the ‘science’ in as a key mission for zoos (and included in the legislation about them) is the educational role. In some smaller collections you often get very detailed signage - reflecting peoples passion for the animals but a lower emphasis on marketing / design.

I suspect if you asked ‘what should be on zoo signage’ here you’d get a different answer to that in some marketing / educational departments though. I always read them but judging by the woman standing absolutely in front of the Japanese red crane sign who pointed at the birds and declared ‘definitely just some random herons I’ve seen those before’ at Whipsnade at the weekend, signs don’t always cut through whatever you write.