ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
That one was Gerald Durrell - I think.
I'm sure he can be forgiven, given the context in which he used it.
Use of the word ‘habitat’ in zoos/wildlife parks
- Thread starter TriUK
- Start date
That one was Gerald Durrell - I think.
I'm sure he can be forgiven, given the context in which he used it.
In that context, job basically means "a thing" - an LBJ is a little brown thing. It's not a job as in employment.
I guess zoo managers, like management in most industries have their buzzwords and habitat does seem to be the latest. I have even seen vivariums in reptile houses referred to as habitats on zoo websites.
This seems to be part of another trend of incorporating geographical features into exhibit names. How many exhibits are there called something wood, valley, beach, cove, bay, etc?
Agree that it works if the land on which the exhibit is built could have been described as such beforehand.
This seems to be part of another trend of incorporating geographical features into exhibit names. How many exhibits are there called something wood, valley, beach, cove, bay, etc?
Agree that it works if the land on which the exhibit is built could have been described as such beforehand.
Gerald Durrell used the term "little brown job" to refer ,rather casually it must be said,to unglamorous small species. It is in no way meant to be serious -rather it is almost jocular.Im in complete agreement on the ridiculous use of the word "habitat"...which could literally be correct but is still "new age" in an "icky" way. My other bete noire is "guests" meaning visitors. I have guests to my house - but I dont charge them to enter !
Didn't know that it was British slang. I also thought of "jobber," as in a pro wrestler whose role it is to get beaten up so other wrestlers improve their reputations. Maybe little brown jobs are diminished for the sake of elevating charismatic megafauna? Although, I'm not sure if "jobber" was used in the UK in that era.
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
That's a new one on me - northern perhaps?
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed - 'guests' do not pay, and 'customers' usually buy something physical.
Surely zoos have 'visitors'?
I think 'guest' probably originated on the same side of the pond, perhaps even from the same sources?
As far as I'm aware it was originally specific to Glasgow and the surrounding area - it may have spread further, but I've certainly never heard it anywhere else myself except coming from the mouth of a Glaswegian!
unlike other bits of Scots dialect which *have* spread south of the border into Northumberland.
I don't really care.
I don't care if people say buffalo instead of bison.
I don't care if people say koala bear.
Americans are pretty damn stupid , but then so is every body else.
C'est la vie
I don't care if people say buffalo instead of bison.
I don't care if people say koala bear.
Americans are pretty damn stupid , but then so is every body else.
C'est la vie
Is it annoying and frustrating? If you overfixiate on it possibly, for me it is of slight annoyance but not crucial, however I understand how it is important to give words a precise meaning, especially in a scientific field.
I consider an habitat (in a captive setting) a natural-looking enclosure with more than a single specimen, if my two cents on it are of any interest.
However all containment measures are enclosures, so are the habitats of zoos.
Countrary, I find the term exhibit for an enclosure uncorrect in, my modest opinion.
An exhibit is an exhibit(ion) of specimens with something in common, be it a theme or a narrative.
To have a concrete example of a zoo I visited: all of the Africa area (dark yellow on the map) at Prague is an exhibit, with different indoor sub-exhibits usually defined as pavilions - even though the Cambridge and Oxford definitions consider "pavilion" as a temporary or open structure, so "house" would be a better fitting term - that exhibit animals within the same major theme but with either a slight deviation or simply closer relation for any reason, be it practicality, theming or husbandry.
However the polar bear enclosure I do not consider an exhibit as it is a single enclosure not designed with a narrative or theme in mind and not even immersive: it's simply an enclosure out of place.
After all this blubbering, at the end of the day does it really matter? I don't think, it's an unofficial terminology being applied in a vast field, everyone will do as they please.
In relation to zoos this term originated with Gerald Durrell when explaining that an objective of Jersey Zoo was to work with small, unremarkable animals often ignored by other zoos. If he took it from birding, there is no way to know. To the best of my knowledge, he did not go birdwatching but he was a friend of Peter Scott.
I don’t think it is widely used in zoos in that most would be more interested in big black and white jobs, if they had the chance.
The usage is British/Australian, probably more slang than mainstream.
“Guest” originated in the hospitality industry, and is more aimed at staff to remind them how to treat customers of that hotel, cafe etc. Not a bad thing to remind zoo staff of, to create a friendly, helpful and welcoming atmosphere. Visitors are a pain who get in the way of getting the job done. Guests are people you want to make welcome.
Actually, I think you will find that in many zoos, staff will be required to use the term “habitat” rather than “enclosure” when talking to the public, media etc. So yes, it is official terminology.
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
For me personally, I only use the word "habitat" when the animal's enclosure clearly presents itself as one that is doing its best to represent the conditions that the animal would live in under its natural circumstance. I tend to refer to the larger scope of animal enclosures as the "exhibit", and "habitat" as the enclosures within. Using Memphis' Zambezi River Hippo Camp as an example, I would refer to ZRHC as the overarching "exhibit", but I would refer to singular animal enclosures, like that of the flamingos or okapi, as "habitats" in the exhibit. I do believe it is a title that is to be deserved by the husbandry and upkeep of an animal's enclosure from an institution, but I do not see it as being negative in every context. I understand not liking it, though.
I also incorporate it into my vocabulary because using the words "exhibit", "region", and "animal enclosure" just get a little dull for me after a while. I will sometimes use "exhibit" in replacement of "habitat", but not the other way around.
I also incorporate it into my vocabulary because using the words "exhibit", "region", and "animal enclosure" just get a little dull for me after a while. I will sometimes use "exhibit" in replacement of "habitat", but not the other way around.
I do say guests….not sure why. Visitor is good. Customer seems impolite.
It seems to me that when I was a child the word 'exhibit' referred to the animals rather than an enclosure, probably because it was the animals that were on exhibition. People would often ask if the zoo had any new exhibits when enquiring about new animals.
just as in a museum the exhibits are the artefacts displayed to the public, and in a courtroom the exhibits are the material objects of evidence displayed to the courtroom, in a zoo the exhibits were the animals.