The Phylogenetics of Zoo Exhibits: The Reptile House Problem

[Aardwolf]

It’s really not that simple, though. As a keeper myself, I would echo @Zooplantman and @Jurek7 and say that a “jack of all trades is a master of none”. No matter how similar you may think the needs of various taxa are, in reality, they really are drastically different — as @Zooplantman has described with reptiles and amphibians — and even within taxa this can be so. By having generalized departments with staff taking care of an assortment of taxa, you will always be increasing the margin for error, even with the most skilled and seasoned staff, to the Nth degree. I will always be of the opinion that not having specialized staff results in poorer quality of life for the animals because there is just so much in-depth knowledge that you will not begin to understand or pick-up on if you are not devoting your time and focus to them. We have lost so much zoological management knowledge as zoos have moved away from this set up. There’s a reason why medical specialists exist. Would you want someone who is just familiar with the cardiovascular system to perform your heart surgery or a cardiologist that has spent their whole career studying it? I have been very strategic in my career to ensure that I stay specialized in hoofstock to ensure that I know the ins-and-outs of their management and husbandry and can be that expert as we continue to lose those in the zoological community.

And it's almost always the non-mammals that suffer in these contexts. I remember a keeper (who largely thought of herself as a primate keeper, because that's where her interests were) calling me in a panic because one of the ducks that shared her tamarin exhibit was hurt and she needed help catching it up. As we were on our way to the exhibit, I asked her which species it was; there were four species of waterfowl in the exhibit, and I wanted to know which I should be on the lookout for. She looked at me like I was crazy and said "How should I know?"

She'd been a keeper for that exhibit for three years. Never bothered to learn what the birds she was feeding even were. That, I admit, is a pretty extreme example, but it does illustrate the point that @Kudu21 and others have brought up.

 

[TinoPup]

It's a small scale comparison, but I sometimes care for a small farm that has several dogs, several cats (some in the home, some in the barn), 3 horses, ~20 guineafowl, ~40 chickens, 2 peafowl (and a feral one), 1 duck, 2 guinea pigs, and a budgie. No matter how you look at it, the GPs and budgie get the least of my attention and it takes a bit of effort on my part to remember them. They are separate from the other animals, especially the GPs who are in a bedroom. They are relatively quiet, they are easy keepers who don't need specialized care. They get the least amount of my attention and I don't know much about them, beyond the basics of their personalities.

 

[JVM]

All this keeper insight is interesting! That is a topic I have wondered about quite a lot.

@Neil chace Thank you for mentioning Knoxville and Atlanta. I think Atlanta's reptile building looks incredible and it definitely adds more value to my desire to visit Atlanta! I didn't find as much information on Knoxville but did find some wonderful images. Both are more reminiscent of Tropical Discovery than the other facilities I had visited.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

The appeal to the different husbandry needs as a reason for not having these joint houses, while absolutely understandable on a day-to-day basis, is interesting to me in a sort of meta- or philosophical sense.

Presumably, those husbandry standards have themselves grown out of a time and a mindset where birds and "classical" reptiles really were considered more separate than they are today. The same I presume is true of the different specialities and distinctions between and among zookeepers and departments.

But if we really do believe that birds and "classical" reptiles are more closely related in evolutionary terms, then it stands to reason that there might actually be some previously unforeseen benefits to thinking of their husbandry together. I don't mean just more accurate education for guests, but new ways of thinking about bird and reptile husbandry itself, which might present themselves in a joint department or joint exhibit set up.

Granted, I have no idea what those benefits would be exactly. Discovering that better husbandry means more space for reptiles and more climate control for birds? Different understandings of their social structures? New insights into reproduction and breeding programs? I'm not enough of an expert to go very far with this. (Hopefully people with more knowledge can see what I'm trying to say and fill in the gaps with better examples). But if husbandry is listed as one of the reasons keeping us from presenting a more scientifically and evolutionarily accurate exhibit setup to the public, it begs the question of what is keeping us from adopting a more scientifically and evolutionarily accurate approach to that husbandry itself.

Put another way, we won't be able to have the evolutionary similarity of birds and other reptiles sink in for the public in our exhibits, until we can get that evolutionary similarity to sink in for our scientists and zookeepers in the husbandry!

 

[Kudu21]

The appeal to the different husbandry needs as a reason for not having these joint houses, while absolutely understandable on a day-to-day basis, is interesting to me in a sort of meta- or philosophical sense.

Presumably, those husbandry standards have themselves grown out of a time and a mindset where birds and "classical" reptiles really were considered more separate than they are today. The same I presume is true of the different specialities and distinctions between and among zookeepers and departments.

But if we really do believe that birds and "classical" reptiles are more closely related in evolutionary terms, then it stands to reason that there might actually be some previously unforeseen benefits to thinking of their husbandry together. I don't mean just more accurate education for guests, but new ways of thinking about bird and reptile husbandry itself, which might present themselves in a joint department or joint exhibit set up.

Granted, I have no idea what those benefits would be exactly. Discovering that better husbandry means more space for reptiles and more climate control for birds? Different understandings of their social structures? New insights into reproduction and breeding programs? I'm not enough of an expert to go very far with this. (Hopefully people with more knowledge can see what I'm trying to say and fill in the gaps with better examples). But if husbandry is listed as one of the reasons keeping us from presenting a more scientifically and evolutionarily accurate exhibit setup to the public, it begs the question of what is keeping us from adopting a more scientifically and evolutionarily accurate approach to that husbandry itself.

Put another way, we won't be able to have the evolutionary similarity of birds and other reptiles sink in for the public in our exhibits, until we can get that evolutionary similarity to sink in for our scientists
and zookeepers in the husbandry!

I think that this is being over intellectualized for the sake of being over-intellectualized. I, too, think that evolution, phylogeny, paleontology, etc. are fascinating subjects and subjects worth educating the public about in scientific organizations such as zoos and aquariums, and I think you will find this is true throughout the zoo community, *especially* amongst the herp community; however, from a practical husbandry standpoint, evolutionary relationships do not translate to the physical, behavioral, cognitive, reproductive, etc. needs of these animals. After all, birds have been on their evolutionary trajectory for what? Some 165-150 million odd years now? Would one claim that there are husbandry similarities between, say, cetaceans and your average savanna hoofstock mix just because cetaceans are technically ungulates? What about hyrax and elephants? I know for sure that I would not trust my knowledge and experience as a Hoofstock keeper to translate to cetaceans, and I certainly would not trust it the other way around either — I have seen training specialists from SeaWorld come in to assist in training at traditional zoos and not know the next thing about the behaviors and motivations of hoofstock. Just because they are related does not mean that their needs are similar. Husbandry is based on the animals. It is based on what is tangible in the here and now. So yes, in theory, a joint bird and reptile house could be planned and built at a modern zoo with the proper planning, husbandry considerations, and cooperation between bird and reptile staff; however, in the scheme of all of the considerations zoos have to make when planning new exhibits, does it make logistical sense? Does it make financial sense? Does it make sense from a staffing standpoint? Does it make sense from husbandry standpoint? Does it make sense from a mission, conservation, and education standpoint? There is so much that would have to align — more than I think anyone not working directly in the industry every really realizes.

 

[Jurek7]

@Aardwolf
Unfortunately, this is not that unusual. I know of a zoo with a giraffe house with a 'sideshow exhibit', which in the space of few years held several reptiles and small mammals, and they kept dying. I don't know what is wrong.

Probably many such 'sideshow exhibits' don't allow to keep designed temperature and humidity, and reptiles usually need it.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Thanks @Kudu21 ! I want to be clear that what you write makes a lot of sense to me, and is what I rather clumsily meant by the day-to-day considerations. (Which are hugely important. I didn't mean to belittle them). Indeed, as just a general member of the zoogoing public, most of what you mention makes a lot more sense to me than putting them together. A lot!

I guess what I can't shake is the (admittedly philosophical) idea that the reason these may make more sense to me may be that my introduction and education in science happened at a time before we were teaching the birds-are-reptiles approach, and that I'm still carrying those outdated separations around in my mind as implicit assumptions. So when I try to break myself of that habit, I can't help wondering whether each of the excellent considerations you listed -- all of which I instinctively agree with -- are really just additional places where I find myself agreeing because that old way of thinking is seeping into my own thinking (in an implicit, completely unintentional way).

If I'm approaching it from an overly philosophical or overly intellectualized approach, it's not for their own sake, but more that I'm struggling (but honestly trying) to think through all the very pragmatic implications of where the old model may still be having an oversized effect. If we're balancing a conservation strategy that was developed using the old model, and a tradition of habitat design that was developed when everyone assumed the old model, and husbandry manuals that all grew out of zoo departments that were divided up in accordance with the old model, then a joint building is always going to feel much more challenging (and with much smaller reward) than if the joint approach is implemented more fully everywhere else.

I certainly agree though that I wouldn't want unqualified keepers taking care of any animal (your SeaWorld hoofstock training example, or the examples of animals being thrown into a keeper's rotation just because they're small and close by). So maybe we're a generation (or more) out from actually being able to implement this, since it would require new training for folks and waiting for them to move through the pipeline and up the ranks. Either that or a zoo director who was really dedicated to it, and bird and herp departments that are on really good terms and willing to give it a try.

 

[TinoPup]

Thanks @Kudu21 ! I want to be clear that what you write makes a lot of sense to me, and is what I rather clumsily meant by the day-to-day considerations. (Which are hugely important. I didn't mean to belittle them). Indeed, as just a general member of the zoogoing public, most of what you mention makes a lot more sense to me than putting them together. A lot!

I guess what I can't shake is the (admittedly philosophical) idea that the reason these may make more sense to me may be that my introduction and education in science happened at a time before we were teaching the birds-are-reptiles approach, and that I'm still carrying those outdated separations around in my mind as implicit assumptions. So when I try to break myself of that habit, I can't help wondering whether each of the excellent considerations you listed -- all of which I instinctively agree with -- are really just additional places where I find myself agreeing because that old way of thinking is seeping into my own thinking (in an implicit, completely unintentional way).

If I'm approaching it from an overly philosophical or overly intellectualized approach, it's not for their own sake, but more that I'm struggling (but honestly trying) to think through all the very pragmatic implications of where the old model may still be having an oversized effect. If we're balancing a conservation strategy that was developed using the old model, and a tradition of habitat design that was developed when everyone assumed the old model, and husbandry manuals that all grew out of zoo departments that were divided up in accordance with the old model, then a joint building is always going to feel much more challenging (and with much smaller reward) than if the joint approach is implemented more fully everywhere else.

I certainly agree though that I wouldn't want unqualified keepers taking care of any animal (your SeaWorld hoofstock training example, or the examples of animals being thrown into a keeper's rotation just because they're small and close by). So maybe we're a generation (or more) out from actually being able to implement this, since it would require new training for folks and waiting for them to move through the pipeline and up the ranks. Either that or a zoo director who was really dedicated to it, and bird and herp departments that are on really good terms and willing to give it a try.

Just because husbandry was developed before it was known that birds and herps are so closely related, doesn't mean it's wrong or outdated or needs to be improved upon. Species care has continued to advance as we learn more about the animals we keep. I'm not understanding how you think husbandry could improve based just on their relationship.

 

[Kudu21]

Thanks @Kudu21 ! I want to be clear that what you write makes a lot of sense to me, and is what I rather clumsily meant by the day-to-day considerations. (Which are hugely important. I didn't mean to belittle them). Indeed, as just a general member of the zoogoing public, most of what you mention makes a lot more sense to me than putting them together. A lot!

I guess what I can't shake is the (admittedly philosophical) idea that the reason these may make more sense to me may be that my introduction and education in science happened at a time before we were teaching the birds-are-reptiles approach, and that I'm still carrying those outdated separations around in my mind as implicit assumptions. So when I try to break myself of that habit, I can't help wondering whether each of the excellent considerations you listed -- all of which I instinctively agree with -- are really just additional places where I find myself agreeing because that old way of thinking is seeping into my own thinking (in an implicit, completely unintentional way).

If I'm approaching it from an overly philosophical or overly intellectualized approach, it's not for their own sake, but more that I'm struggling (but honestly trying) to think through all the very pragmatic implications of where the old model may still be having an oversized effect. If we're balancing a conservation strategy that was developed using the old model, and a tradition of habitat design that was developed when everyone assumed the old model, and husbandry manuals that all grew out of zoo departments that were divided up in accordance with the old model, then a joint building is always going to feel much more challenging (and with much smaller reward) than if the joint approach is implemented more fully everywhere else.

I certainly agree though that I wouldn't want unqualified keepers taking care of any animal (your SeaWorld hoofstock training example, or the examples of animals being thrown into a keeper's rotation just because they're small and close by). So maybe we're a generation (or more) out from actually being able to implement this, since it would require new training for folks and waiting for them to move through the pipeline and up the ranks. Either that or a zoo director who was really dedicated to it, and bird and herp departments that are on really good terms and willing to give it a try.

I’m going to echo @TinoPup here and say that I just do not understand the logic here… Animal husbandry is a field that is constantly changing and evolving as we come to understand more about animals and their needs in human care (even if some long-standing knowledge and understanding is being lost as many facilities transition away from specialized departments), and these changes are based in scientific research being conducted on living animals. It is not this static field based in a time before modern understanding as you seem to suggest. I struggle to see how you think “embracing” an evolutionary relationship from 160 million years ago is going to somehow radically improve animal husbandry beyond what can be learned from living animals…? This is over-intellectualizing for the sake of over-intellectualizing. There is no practicality here.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Aside from the discussions about the pragmatism of specialized staff and buildings for groups of animals with different needs - all valuable and appreciated contributions, by the way! - I'd add as someone that really likes both groups, I much prefer having separate buildings for birds and herps than combining them, for a few reasons:

- Diversity: birds and herps are both very diverse groups, with nearly 30,000 species between the three classes involved; even just captive species may number up to 2,000 or more. Having one building dedicated to all of them rather than two or more would likely cap their numbers below what the zoo could potentially carry, which seems like more of a loss than a gain from any standpoint.

- Attention: having buildings and exhibits with more specialized focuses - for example, an all-birds house or an all-reptiles house - better highlights the one group in the building IMO. If birds, reptiles, and amphibians were all grouped into one building, it may take some attention away from all of these groups because none of them are highlighted to the same degree as they would with their own buildings.
(Note: for the same reason, I think it's great when zoos have separate buildings for their amphibians; however, given that there are far fewer captive species of amphibian than birds or reptiles, I understand the logic of putting them with reptiles most of the time).

- Ease of Choice: if you really like birds but hate snakes, or vice versa, having birds and reptiles in separate buildings makes it easier to prioritize what you want to see at a zoo. I think most of us try to see everything (I do, at least) but many visitors may only want one or the other. You may also be limited on time at the zoo. If you combine as many groups as possible into one building, it's harder to pick and choose what you want to prioritize spending your time on.

 

[Aardwolf]

I agree. The concept seems like a solution in search of a problem

 

[Great Argus]

- Ease of Choice: if you really like birds but hate snakes, or vice versa, having birds and reptiles in separate buildings makes it easier to prioritize what you want to see at a zoo. I think most of us try to see everything (I do, at least) but many visitors may only want one or the other

This is a particularly notable point, as many members of the public will actively avoid reptile houses because they're scared/dislike them. I've seen plenty of people young and old turn around and walk straight back out of a building that contains reptiles. There may well be other animals in there too, but they pass on the whole thing because they hate reptiles (usually the snakes). Spiders are often even worse for this.
Now ideally one can hope that because the animals are contained they might be willing to go in and at least look (and some do), but the reality is a lot of people want nothing to do with snakes whatsoever. What the best way of trying to ease these fears from a zoo perspective is I don't know, sometimes direct education works and sometimes it doesn't. Some people are terrified of birds, others bats, even butterflies. I know a couple people who are terrified of fish and won't visit an aquarium for anything. This is where having options where a guest can choose whether to visit areas is important. Forcing someone to be close to/be in direct contact with an animal they're scared of rarely comes out positively, especially as a one off experience. If they have the option and can maybe look briefly that is better than nothing. Gentle exposure at their comfort level will go much farther towards comfort and education about the animal than being forced to see it if they want to see something else.

 

[TinoPup]

That's a really good point! Both of my parents are afraid of snakes, my mom screams at the thought of them, so we didn't go in any herp building when I was kid. My mom still won't, and if there's a surprise snake she'll turn around and walk back out. My dad will at least rush by and pretend they're just boring

 

[JVM]

- Diversity: birds and herps are both very diverse groups, with nearly 30,000 species between the three classes involved; even just captive species may number up to 2,000 or more. Having one building dedicated to all of them rather than two or more would likely cap their numbers below what the zoo could potentially carry, which seems like more of a loss than a gain from any standpoint.

This is extremely well-stated! I tried to allude to a similar thread of thought earlier but I communicated very poorly.

I also realized such an exhibit could not simply be a redress or retheme of an existing bird or reptile building and would need to be entirely new and on a footprint akin to a proper zoo complex. I think for many zoos, they would feel that money would be better spent on something biogeographic than on a massive taxonomic building, especially as aviaries and reptile houses often lack superstar draws.

This is sort of what I was leaning into here -- that to do full service to this concept, you would need a complex including the equivalent to the best of reptile houses and the best of bird houses, which would cost as much as both buildings would individually. Knoxville Zoo's Reptile House cost $18 million or only reptiles; double that to account for birds and you're costing as much as or exceeding exhibits for great apes, polar bears, elephants and hippopotamus. Even integration of penguins or large crocodilians, I can still see some zoos pause at numbers like that.

The first alternative to spending so much on such a massive exhibit complex is to compromise and reduce the total collections to below the value of two complete, separate buildings, which will affect collection but also very likely education, if you can save money on less signage and less displays, and the more compromise is done in both of those areas, the more a sense of loss over gain, as Coelocanth18 put it, sinks in. The second alternative is to spend it on something else, a charismatic species or a biogeographic complex. The last alternative is to pick and just do a reptile house or a bird house, and hold the other off until later.

I think it could be pulled off correctly, but you'd need a stubborn zoo director with a lot of funding.

 

[Lota lota]

Suprised Natural history museums haven't been brought up in this thread.
People rarley read signage at zoos,and even if zoos started including birds in reptile houses,few people would actually leave the zoo knowing that birds are reptiles.At museums people are much more keen on reading signs.People expect too learn about evolution at an museum,not at the zoo.So why should zoos invest large amounts of money into merging birds and reptiles together.
When museums can do it at a fraction of the ammont of hassle and money?

 

[Great Argus]

At museums people are much more keen on reading signs.People expect too learn about evolution at an museum,not at the zoo.So why should zoos invest large amounts of money into merging birds and reptiles together.
When museums can do it at a fraction of the ammont of hassle and money?

From personal observations, I disagree that people are more likely to read signs at museums. You can literally stick a large sign in the middle of the path and most people won't read it.

 

[BenFoxster]

Without having read every comment in the thread, with so many arguing about whether amphibians, bugs, insects, and reptiles should actually be housed in "reptile houses" together, shouldn't we just come to the conclusion that these are really "herpetariums," a building for all herps in general? Most of them are most likely called reptile houses just because when most of them were made in the past, the people making them probably had no clue there was a difference between reptiles and amphibians, or they just thought "reptile house" sounded cooler then herp house or herpetarium.

 

[Chlidonias]

Without having read every comment in the thread, with so many arguing about whether amphibians, bugs, insects, and reptiles should actually be housed in "reptile houses" together, shouldn't we just come to the conclusion that these are really "herpetariums," a building for all herps in general? Most of them are most likely called reptile houses just because when most of them were made in the past, the people making them probably had no clue there was a difference between reptiles and amphibians, or they just thought "reptile house" sounded cooler then herp house or herpetarium.

Have you read any of the thread? Because what you have said isn't what the thread is about.

 

[BenFoxster]

The first page is everyone arguing whether or not amphibians should be kept in reptile houses, then asking the same about arthropods, so I'm suggesting that they're really herpetariums rather than reptile houses. This is not including the discussion on whether birds should be exhibited in reptile houses or not.

 

[Chlidonias]

The first page is everyone arguing whether or not amphibians should be kept in reptile houses, then asking the same about arthropods, so I'm suggesting that they're really herpetariums rather than reptile houses. This is not including the discussion on whether birds should be exhibited in reptile houses or not.

The first page has one person in post #18 ask as an aside "Plus, here's another matter; do amphibians belong in reptile houses? I think they do, but perhaps in a certain section of it, with plenty of differentiating info. What do you all think?"

Post #20 has a reply to that starting with "Similarly what about arthropods? Most reptile houses I've been in have the odd arachnid or stick insect in a small exhibit or two."

That is not what the thread is about, those are side-questions - and, on the first page where you state "everyone [is] arguing" about it, is just two posts out of twenty (and they are not to the remotest degree "arguing").