Trends in European zoo collections in the 21st century

With respect, you brought it up first and there are clearly a great many sources, not least the country itself which regard Cyprus as firmly part of Europe.

In fairness I had to bring it up, because what is defined as Europe is clearly debatable and without highlighting the going definition of Europe for this thread at the beginning it would have given a lot of headaches later on.

In hindsight I should have written: Cyprus isn't included either as it is in a geographical sense generally classified as Asia. But I hadn't expected such a small statement in that context would be so contentious.
 
In hindsight I should have written: Cyprus isn't included either as it is in a geographical sense generally classified as Asia. But I hadn't expected such a small statement in that context would be so contentious.

Fair enough. But it is contentious as you now know and I would also have disagreed with the statement that “in a geographical sense generally classified as Asia”.
 
One wonders how Lintworms threads always end up being 50 pages or more :rolleyes:

Both the real-life lintworm of the class Cestoda , and the legendary lindwurm of Scandinavian and Central European folklore, are notoriously lengthy creatures :p so it is only fitting our very own @lintworm fits the pattern.
 
One wonders how Lintworms threads always end up being 50 pages or more :rolleyes:

Both the real-life lintworm of the class Cestoda , and the legendary lindwurm of Scandinavian and Central European folklore, are notoriously lengthy creatures :p so it is only fitting our very own @lintworm fits the pattern.

To be fair this will only be the second thread of mine which I expect to beat 50 pages and given the number of posts that are already prepared, it is likely going to be my longest thread.... I didn't expect Cyprus to feature much though. And the stupid thing is, had I chose to include Cyprus initially it would hardly have made a difference in the grand scheme of European zoo collections given there are only 2 major zoos (though one has a choice bird collection)...
 
Before we start there is some more methodology to talk about to avoid miscommunication later.

Methodology


While methodology isn’t exactly the most exciting part it is crucial to make some general remarks on how I came to the current list. This post consists of 3 parts, how I used Zootierliste, species delimitations and the choice of a starting year. Geography was covered more than enough already in the first post, so doesn’t need a reiteration here :p.


Zootierliste
Zootierliste has a somewhat notorious reputation for being unreliable with some people, but in reality it is a surprisingly reliable source for an exercise like this one. Rarities are often quite well documented and except in a few cases there is always a recent source of 2 years or less in the case of mammals or birds that indicates it’s presence. That is good enough for me. Even for former holdings the information is surprisingly up to date. For many larger zoos with a lot of rarities like both Berlins, Plzen, Prague, Wroclaw and Walsrode there are good sources available (such as old-fashioned guidebooks and stock lists) for the past decades. There are a few smaller institutions and Southern European institutions where information on former holdings is more scarce. This likely means I have missed some species that have been formerly kept, but are not represented on Zootierliste. But that likely also means those holdings are unknown to basically anyone else. Such missed species will likely also only make up a very small percentage of all species kept and thus won’t change the overall narrative.

There are cases where it is unclear whether the species was kept in Europe at a given point in time, in such cases where it is uncertain I will note this in the thread and in some cases I will give an indication of whether I think it is likely or not that this species was around at a given point in time. For example many rare tropical passerines were kept in the first decade of the century in the NOP in Veldhoven, the Netherlands and no starting date is mentioned for most holdings. Given that the tropical hall in which they were kept was only opened in the 21st century I have assumed those species arrived after 2000. In some cases more than a question mark was not possible though, so there remains some uncertainty around the number of bird and mammal species present in 2000.

Sometimes Zootierliste does have erroneous or outdated holdings. In several cases I have used ZIMS as an extra source, but that only works for zoos that are a member, but it has helped to get more insight in a few current holdings that turned out not to be accurate anymore. There have also been cases where species have been moved behind the scenes and were erroneously removed to former holdings in Zootierliste, as they are still present per ZIMS. In 1 case ZIMS even yielded a completely new species for Europe. There are also some wrong IDs on Zootierliste and in a few cases such as the Nilgiri tahr that were claimed to be held in Bioparc Fuengirola I have not included them after checking additional sources. As this was confirmed to be extremely unlikely. Fortunately these are the exceptions.

full

@Chlidonias Unfortunately Nilgiri tahr have been absent from Europe for close to 90 years now


What is a species

Although every biologist has an answer as to what a species is, simultaneously no biologist has the answer. This means there will always be some confusion and disagreement. For birds it was relatively easy to select a source to follow. Zootierliste itself follows the latest IOC list (Version 13.2; IOC World Bird List – Version 13.1) so that is what I used too.

For mammals things are more complicated. Until recent years the IUCN Red List taxonomy was followed, but that one is completely outdated in many instances. Zootierliste itself uses its own made up taxonomy which at some points is progressive, in others conservative and in a few cases just incorrect. In recent years the ASM Mammal Diversity Database has come up and it is slowly developing into the taxonomy to follow. There are still inconsistencies (especially between orders), but at least choices of splitting or lumping are based on actual scientific papers and it is transparent where decisions are based on. Primates are still oversplit in the checklist and there isn’t always much of a check as to whether the scientific papers cited are actually good. The book “All Mammals of the World” is also based on this book and the taxonomy used here is based on a later version of the database than the book (version 1.11 is used for this thread). This means that for example 2 species of takin are treated in this thread, though the book recognizes only 1. The database can be accessed here: ASM Mammal Diversity Database

With some rare exceptions subspecies don’t get any attention, in the rare cases they do I have followed what I think is correct as the Mammal Diversity Database doesn’t deal with subspecies. For common names I have usually followed the Mammal Diversity Database, but in some cases their common names are rather unusual, in such cases I have followed my own preference ;).

While at the species level I follow science, I follow it more loosely when it comes to the order in which families and orders are treated in this thread. Though I guess most people won’t notice, good for you if you do, but it was done with the overall narrative in mind, not taxonomic perfection.

full

@Veno Takin taxonomy is changing, with 2 species recognised in this thread

Why 2000?
Choosing a starting date is one of the most influential decisions for a thread. Choosing 1900 would be way too early and 2020 would be quite meaningless too. For me it was quite a straightforward decision to choose 2000 as a starting point for various reasons:
  • Stock lists and annual reports as sources for Zootierliste entries only become common from the mid-1990s onwards for a number of zoos which are important because of their large collections. This means that data quality quickly declines if moving pre 2000. Given that most zoo enthusiasts using Zootierliste also only started with their hobby in the 21st century the visit reports that are in important source are also much rarer pre-2000.

  • Zoos in 2000 were in a way relatively similar to zoos now. Breeding programs were well established and there was an increasing focus on conservation and animal welfare. A zoo from 1990 would already be almost completely unrecognisable. And the further back you go the larger the influence becomes of an era where zoos could just import almost any species at will without caring to breed them. Zoos of that time were post stamp collections where many species were only held for relative short amounts of time. In a way it would be an interesting comparison with that age too, but I think it is much more interesting to see how zoo collections have developed in an age where the concept of a zoo has been somewhat similar. That gives a better indication of how current zoo priorities change zoo collections and what the actual trends are.

  • As the start of the century it makes a nice and clear cut off point.

  • The majority of zoochatters weren't visiting many zoos before 2000 and as such the period 2000-2023 constitutes something of a living memory for many zoochatters. I think it is very informative to see how perceived changes align with actual changes.
That's it in terms of methodology, there will be another post detailing the format the family and species accounts have.

full

Uploaded by @vogelcommando Gone is the era when zoos would just import giant pangolins for fun

In the meantime just fill out the Survey, that will enable us to compare facts with perception, and if you have already done so, thanks a lot!

https://forms.gle/gz85frchqFGJNcNm7
 
Takin being split into two is interesting. If I remember correctly Groves & Grubb wanted to elevate all ssp to species level. I imagine this 2 species model would be splitting the darker B. whitei and taxicolor from the lighter tibetana and bedfordi?
 
Lumping Mishmi/Bhutan, and Sichuan/Shenzi respectively?
Takin being split into two is interesting. If I remember correctly Groves & Grubb wanted to elevate all ssp to species level. I imagine this 2 species model would be splitting the darker B. whitei and taxicolor from the lighter tibetana and bedfordi?
Questions like this is why @lintworm provided the link to the mammal taxonomy database (thanks for that by the way, very nice to have a mostly coherent mammal taxonomy to follow!).

They recognize:

Himalayan Takin Bodorcas taxicolor (includes Mishimi and Bhutan)
Chinese Takin Budorcas tibetana (including Sichuan and Golden)

Explore the Database
Explore the Database
 
Lumping Mishmi/Bhutan, and Sichuan/Shenzi respectively?

Takin being split into two is interesting. If I remember correctly Groves & Grubb wanted to elevate all ssp to species level. I imagine this 2 species model would be splitting the darker B. whitei and taxicolor from the lighter tibetana and bedfordi?

Questions like this is why @lintworm provided the link to the mammal taxonomy database (thanks for that by the way, very nice to have a mostly coherent mammal taxonomy to follow!).

They recognize:

Himalayan Takin Bodorcas taxicolor (includes Mishimi and Bhutan)
Chinese Takin Budorcas tibetana (including Sichuan and Golden)

Explore the Database
Explore the Database

The Mammal Diversity Database did in its earliest versions adopt the now widely discredited bovid taxonomy of Groves & Grubb, but it was dropped in later versions because there are very few taxonomists who would actually defend it as it has many problems (see Gutierrez & Garbino 2018 or https://www.zoochat.com/community/t...ed-the-evidence-for-the-splits-of-g-g.467230/).

So takin went from 4 to 1 species in the database, but in 2022 Yang et al. published a study that proposed to split takin into 2 based on a variety of genetic markers and morphology. That was to late to be included in All Mammals of the World book, but in time for the latest database update.

All in all the Mammal Diversity Database is somewhat progressive and there are more species than in the mammals of the world series (bovids excepted), but in terms of trends it didn't make a real difference as you win some (e.g. takin, bengal cats) and you lose some (e.g. red panda, red uakari).

Gutierrez & Garbino 2018: Species delimitation based on diagnosis and monophyly, and its importance for advancing mammalian taxonomy
Yang et al. 2022: Evolutionary Conservation Genomics Reveals Recent Speciation and Local Adaptation in Threatened Takins
 
Is there another way to participate without sharing my private email address?

The e-mail adress is not part of the response, as in I don't get to see them. The only way to differentiate between responses is the time it was filled in. I think it is only shown because you are logged in on a google account. If you aren't okay with that either I would suggest opening it in the incognito/private mode of your browser.
 
Red Panda is split in the MDD though:

Explore the Database
Explore the Database

I know, I meant that because red panda is split now, but I see how it can be read differently. 1 species was lost this century as the Chinese red panda (species / formerly subspecies styani) was kept in Europe until 2010. The same with red uakari as the elderly individuals in Cologne and Twycross belonged to different subspecies that have been split recently, so instead of -1 it is -2.
 
Fantastic idea for a thread @lintworm I'm really looking forward to see how this thread progresses.

I've submitted my vote, however I think I forgot to fill in my Zoochat username, but never mind.
 
Before we get going, I think it is good if I briefly explain the format of the posts in this thread. Might not be the most exciting, but it should answer questions that would otherwise be answered later.

The format

The bulk of the posts will be the different order, family and species accounts, each following their own pre-set format. Orders and families themselves will be covered briefly and the bulk of the text is devoted to the species accounts. Posts will typically cover only 1 or a few families, though very speciose families like bovids (Bovidae) will be covered in multiple posts.

Each family post will be divided into a maximum of 6 categories depending on the covered species. Only family members that clearly fall into one of the categories will be treated. So both very common and very rare species can go unmentioned as long as their numbers have been more or less stable throughout the century. Each species gets a short piece of text with the most important data such as holding dates, some zoos which held/hold the species and (possible) causes for the noted trend. The categories are the following:


Species gained
For species that only arrived in Europe this century and are still currently kept. This does include species that were already kept at some point in the 19th or 20th century, but were subsequently lost.

full

@RatioTile The Maleo returned to Europe after 30 years of absence in 2018

Species gained but lost
These are the species that only arrived in Europe this century, but have disappeared again and are not currently kept anymore. This can include species that were already kept at some point in the 19th or 20th century, but were subsequently lost and are now lost again.

full

@gentle lemur Tiger quoll were only kept in Hamerton Zoo form 2018-2022 this century

Species lost
For species that occurred in Europe at the start of the century, but aren’t kept anymore currently. This can include species that were present in 2000 and then disappeared, to reappear and then disappear again.

full

@Gondwana After being present for decades the klipspringer disappeared from Europe in 2022

Species gaining popularity
These are species that have been continually kept this century but have seen a marked increase in popularity, most often due to the net number of holders rising, but in a few cases I have included future interest too. This category is not exhaustive, partly given the lack of arrival dates for some zoos. While not exhaustive I think the included species give a good overview of the trends currently at play. I did not use any fixed criterion to determine a marked increase, though in some cases I have tried to underpin the increase with a number, but in other cases that was just too difficult, even though it is clear the species is gaining popularity. This does also include species that are now significantly more common than in 2000, but have lost popularity in recent years.

full

@Julio C Castro Few mammals have seen a larger increase in number of holders than the giant anteater

Species losing popularity
These are species that have been continually kept this century but have seen a marked decrease in popularity, most often due to the net number of holders declining. In a few cases I have included species here where the number of holders hasn’t declined yet, but is widely expected to do so very soon. This category is not exhaustive and I did not use any fixed criterion to determine a marked decrease. Nevertheless this category should give a good indication of which and what kind of species are losing popularity.

full

@Andrew_NZP Kori bustards are having a hard time in Europe at the moment

Dead ends
This category is only for species of which it is nearly 100% certain that they will disappear from Europe. This includes species for which only single animals are left or only geriatric individuals. There are more species that are likely dead ends due to their small population, but in such cases that is often noted as a “likely dead end” in the species texts, if the respective species is treated at all.

full

@Joker1706 Waiting for the end, Europe's last mountain anoa

So depending on the family there can be a lot of species that get treated or only a few. This is not a thread with exhaustive species lists of all species kept in Europe. Especially species with a stable presence (either common or rare) will go unmentioned and you can find them on Zootierliste ;).

For species that are gained and/or lost from Europe this century there are some symbols after each species name that summarise the history of this species in Europe to quickly differentiate between short term and long term holdings. The symbols are the following:

Number of zoos kept (current and former during the holding period):
A 1 zoo
B 2-5 zoos
C 6-10 zoos
D >10 zoos


Time period kept:
1 < 1 year
2 1-5 years
3 6-10 years
4 11-20 years
5 > 20 years

* Species successfully bred
♱ Dead end (in case of species gained)
↑ Species gaining popularity (in case of species gained)

I will put these indications in a spoiler at the top of each subsequent page for easy reference. I feel that this helps differentiate between the species that have a long versus a short history in Europe. The loss of the mountain paca represents a different thing compared to the loss of the tiger quoll. The former was kept and bred quite widely, where the latter was only held for a short period at a single zoo.

At the end of an order or a group of smaller orders there will be a summarising posts highlighting and analysing overall trends of the covered group(s).

Now is also the final chance to fill in the survey:

https://forms.gle/gz85frchqFGJNcNm7

In a few days I will present the results of the survey as a starting point of zoochat's expectations. After that I will quickly start with what this thread is really all about.
 
Species gaining popularity
These are species that have been continually kept this century but have seen a marked increase in popularity, most often due to the net number of holders rising, but in a few cases I have included future interest too.

Species losing popularity
These are species that have been continually kept this century but have seen a marked decrease in popularity, most often due to the net number of holders declining.
I'm concerned by the word 'popularity'. Do you mean species that are popular with keepers, owners or visitors?
Many animal books and programmes show species that are rare in zoos. Would they deliberately include species that people wouldn't be interested in? Surely, zoos should try to interest visitors in species they may not know about. I remember when the meerkat was an obscure species of mongoose.
Some species that are being kept by more holders have bred successfully or are more easily available for various reasons (such as golden-headed lion tamarins that were confiscated by customs in Belgium). Some species that are being kept by fewer holders may have suffered from low breeding rates, disease etc. The number of holders keeping a species need not be due to the popularity of a species.
 
I'm concerned by the word 'popularity'. Do you mean species that are popular with keepers, owners or visitors?
Many animal books and programmes show species that are rare in zoos. Would they deliberately include species that people wouldn't be interested in? Surely, zoos should try to interest visitors in species they may not know about. I remember when the meerkat was an obscure species of mongoose.
Some species that are being kept by more holders have bred successfully or are more easily available for various reasons (such as golden-headed lion tamarins that were confiscated by customs in Belgium). Some species that are being kept by fewer holders may have suffered from low breeding rates, disease etc. The number of holders keeping a species need not be due to the popularity of a species.

I mean popularity by zoos in that they are now more or less widely kept then in 2000. The most used indicator is the change in the number of zoos holding the species and as written above in some rare cases a prediction of how the number of holders will evolve in the near future. An example for the latter is the gaur whose number of holders hasn't decreased markedly yet, but as all but 1 zoo has stopped breeding, will likely become very rare within 10 years.

While there is not a correlation between popularity and number of holders, the trends are extremely indicative and it is the trend that determines whether a species is listed, not the number of holders. Both meerkats and manatees have gained popularity in that there is a marked increase in number of holders, even though the number of holders of the 2 species is widely different. That trends don't always follow the wish of zoos and bad luck plays a role is true, such as with black-footed cats. But generally popularity covers it pretty well and is somewhat shorter than "species becoming more common", which I could also have used.
 
Back
Top