And now for something completly different 
: a Hamlyn's monkey was born at Leipzig !
: a Hamlyn's monkey was born at Leipzig !Zoo Leipzig Zoo Leipzig news 2016
- Thread starter vogelcommando
- Start date
Could not agree more with Dave's points. Pangolin breeding in-situ has not worked as well as hoped despite multiple efforts, and international zoos need to step up as well to assist conservation.
Thanks, but I'm aware the pangolin situation is dire. Indeed, I believe I contributed to DavidBrown's thread. Were you aware that one study predicted continued deforestation (ie. habitat loss) in Southeast Asia will drive 79% of its vertebrate species extinct by 2100? Were you also aware that the authors themselves believe that's an underestimate, since it ignored climate change and associated synergies? Finally, were you aware that recent work in New Guinea gave a ballpark figure of tropical (read: insect herbivore) species richness as 3 million?
That is what's at stake if conservation in the tropics fails. Not eight (read: one) species of pangolin. So, whilst the extinction of pangolins (or any other taxon) would be tragic and captive breeding might possibly delay it, the loss of their habitat is truly "inestimable". Even taking the ex situ view, there are many threatened species which could be more effectively propagated. However, if zoos and their supporters genuinely understood conservation, they'd forget their silly, outmoded ark analogy and realize it is not "worthwhile" to fret over whichever species they want to see on their next trip to Germany.
Wilhelma will not receive Bilbies yet, they will coordinate the programme though.
I am entirely aware of these points; my argument is that it is not an either/or scenario where zoos can only realistically be involved in either in-situ or ex-situ programmes. It is extremely important to protect and work towards restoring the environments in the tropics of which you speak, among others, and hence ensure that as many taxa as possible never *need* ex-situ breeding programmes. However this does not mean that it is not possible to also undertake measures to save those species for whom in-situ programmes are too little, too late.
And I would argue just as much for the potential merits in their propagation, too. However, I would not be inclined to reduce the question of which species deserve to be saved and which should be abandoned to the sole point of how *easy* it is. If it was truly necessary to pick and choose which species should be protected and which should be abandoned, surely a more valid criterion would be to endeavour to preserve those taxa which represent evolutionarily significant forms; in which case the pangolins - one of only a small handful of mammalian orders which entirely consist of taxa classified as near-threatened, vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN, along with the Sirenia, Proboscidea and Microbiotheria - would surely count as among the most evolutionarily-significant of mammalian species.
Dismissing anyone who believes that pangolins - or indeed any other species not currently established in captivity - merit being part of an ex-situ breeding programme as not "genuinely understanding conservation" and concerned only with "[fretting] over whichever species they want to see on their next trip to Germany" is not only inaccurate and unfair, but seems an incredibly cynical view of the motives of anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
I always enjoy your posts here, but this last comment seems a little snide! Some people like to see unusual species of animal from time to time; I don't see that this is anything to be ridiculed.
I think that the suggestion that "conservation" (whatever that might mean) is the only reason to maintain animals in captivity is fallacious, but that is another discussion.
If the sole purpose of zoos were to "conserve" (whatever that.....etc), then the criticism of the cost of Gondwanaland (and other such exhibits) might be valid, like criticising the cost of the office operation of an NGO fighting inequalities in the developing world. But those of us who believe that there are many reasons to keep and display wild animals might think that the cost of Gondwanaland, although high, is really just a drop in the ocean, might look at the £260 million spent on the extension to London's Tate Modern, for example, and conclude that compared to other cultural organisations, zoos turnover and spend fairly small amounts of money.
Apparently our interests overlap substantially. We should get a beer sometime
It's not always either/or, hence I disagree with @Bib Fortuna's suggestion that the money spent on Gondwanaland could have gone to in situ work. The money would not have been available for that purpose. Often, however, limited resources do result in trade-offs and, to continue the sci-fi theme, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or rather, the Louvre's burning down – by all means run inside and try dragging out the Venus de Milo; I'll be dousing the flames.
On a related point, I disagree with promulgating the concept of zoo collections as "safety nets" or sources for future reintroduction/reinforcement for the vast majority of species. In 2004, for instance, < 20% of SSPs had reintroduction as a program objective. Even that figure's an overstatement, though, given that the majority of species are not maintained in SSPs and having reintroduction as a program objective is not the same as having a reintroduction program. Further, taxa kept in zoos tend to be less threatened and have larger distributions than their closest non-zoo-held relatives.
Again: zoos should be honest with themselves and their patrons and focus their efforts in situ where they belong. There's a tendency on this site to avoid such negativity, but I really don't know why zoo conservation isn't a major scandal. Some pull their weight; far too many do not. And if they're not pulling their weight, they shouldn't be talking about it.
Since my argument is that resources should be diverted in situ, this is not a point I'm particularly interested in. I will say, however, that a far better criterion would be to protect keystone species, for the same utilitarian reasons we should protect habitats rather than species.
The primary benefit of focusing on more evolutionarily distinct species is maintaining functional diversity and evolutionary potential. Neither is an unequivocal correlate, but let's assume they are. Functional diversity is important due to its role in the functioning and resilience of ecosystems – exactly what I'm arguing for protecting. Evolutionary potential is important because it may facilitate adaptation to anthropogenic change – you managed to select taxa about as unlikely to benefit from such "evolutionary rescue" as possible.
In short, if you were promoting ex situ conservation of keystone species or "Gondwanaland equivalents" – taxa which generate funds for themselves eg. pandas – I would agree. Otherwise, I have not changed my view that support for this move is logically incompatible with a sound understanding of conservation science. Anyone still reading can draw their own conclusions.
Dismissing anyone who believes that pangolins - or indeed any other species not currently established in captivity - merit being part of an ex-situ breeding programme as not "genuinely understanding conservation" and concerned only with "[fretting] over whichever species they want to see on their next trip to Germany" is not only inaccurate and unfair, but seems an incredibly cynical view of the motives of anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint
Cynical? Absolutely. Unfair? Perhaps. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I'm also disinclined to be lectured on dismissing others' viewpoints given your reply to Bib Fortuna's first post. That response (#74) hardly strengthens your argument that this debate is about more than "the import of anything unusual into European collections". But perhaps ending with an emoji will make my response less pointed
Not only snide, but also stupid, given that it distracted from my main point. Clearly, I have nothing against zoos housing animals (or, at least, that's another discussion) and enthusiasts naturally want to see rare species. I do, too. But let's argue for that on its own merits, as you just have, rather than pretend the potential conservation benefits are any more than epiphenomenal.
And I enjoy your posts, too.
Last edited:
My intention with aforementioned response was to convey a complete lack of surprise that Bib Fortuna had posted to dismiss the move out of hand, rather than a dismissal of his viewpoint per se; the topic of *any* species being imported into European collections is a discussion that he has taken part in many times, throughout all of his various usernames, and he has seldom posted anything beyond such point-blank dismissals in such cases
I seem to recall past discussions included Gerenuk, Philippine Scops Owl, Balabac Chevrotain, Siberian Musk Deer and Musk Ox, to name a few.
On another note....
Very good news, even if I fear it is too little, too late for the taxon when it comes to European collections.
And now for something completly different
Very good news, even if I fear it is too little, too late for the taxon when it comes to European collections.
I would very much like to see this study, as I believe its assumptions are very much flawed and the 79% is a big overestimate given the fact how species populations have developed in places where habitat loss is very severe (e.g. Madagascar), most animals just become very rare, extinctions are an exception. The consequences of climate change are however a different matter....
With now 4 collections breeding them, it might very well not be too late yet, though the genetic base is small.
I would very much like to believe this is the case, given I am rather fond of the species and wish that guenons in general were more commonplace in European collections; however, considering the fact that despite regular breeding in most collections holding the species the European population has declined *drastically* in the last decade - with six collections going out of the species since 2006 - I fear the trend is clear.
But 2 collections started breeding again after a long break recently, 2 young in Antwerpen and now the 1 in Leipzig. And 2 zoos started keeping this species in the past 4 years, so there is hope.
Sodhi, N. S., & Brook, B. W. (2006). Southeast Asian biodiversity in crisis. Cambridge University Press.
Re-reading my post, I should have written up to 79%. A recent review did indeed revise that projection downwards, although I remain sceptical:
Wilcove, D. S., Giam, X., Edwards, D. P., Fisher, B., & Koh, L. P. (2013). Navjot's nightmare revisited: logging, agriculture, and biodiversity in Southeast Asia. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(9), 531-540.
Rodrigues et al. (2014) reported that Madagascar's vertebrate diversity is faring well compared to many Southeast Asian countries, where natural disturbances (eg. forest fires) were historically rare. Deforestation rates, levels of endemism, and proportion of threatened taxa are all greater in Southeast Asia than other major tropical regions. As you indicate, however, synergistic effects between habitat loss/fragmentation and climate change are likely to be even more catastrophic.
A further Grevys' zebra fowl was born to dam DOLLY (20) in spite of contraceptives.
@All
During the last 15 years 20 Hamlyn monkeys were born in European Zoos and raised successfully (Antwerp 3x, Leipzig 7x, La Palmyre 3x, Mulhouse 5x, Edinburgh 2x). Not a bad basis for the future apart from the low genetic base.
@All
During the last 15 years 20 Hamlyn monkeys were born in European Zoos and raised successfully (Antwerp 3x, Leipzig 7x, La Palmyre 3x, Mulhouse 5x, Edinburgh 2x). Not a bad basis for the future apart from the low genetic base.
A fair few of these individuals have since died themselves, of course - including the Edinburgh-born animals I believe.
According to ZTL, since 2010 there have been eight individuals born, and my final copy of the ISIS records from this year relating to the species state that at the time there were 9,12,0 individuals alive within European collections. Given the fact that I know there were die-offs at Twycross, Edinburgh and Artis which led to these collections going out of the species since 2010, I suspect that even assuming none of the new births have died in the intervening years - which is unlikely - the European population will be lower than it was six years ago.
You will have to explain that to me, as both Edinburgh and Amsterdam sent one animal to a different zoo, meaning the end of the species kept there for Amsterdam at least. What happened with the final Twycross animals I don't know, but you can probably tell that as an Englishman. Also Valencia sent at least 1 animal to another zoo. A quick estimate based on the zootierliste information gives a total number of about 28 individuals (Leipzig 3.3.1, Berlin 1.2, Antwerp 1.2.1, Doue 0.2, Palmyre 2.2.1, Mulhouse 1.3.1, Bojnice 1.1), which is actually higher than the 2010 count. This estimate is an educated guess for Palmyre, Doue and Bojnice, but I cannot be too far of.
About three individuals died at Edinburgh in a short period of time; as a result they sent their final individual to Bojnice. One of the individuals concerned was the last individual from Twycross, who had been sent to Edinburgh himself after a similar die-off there. Similarly, the reason Artis went out of the species was because their population had fallen to a single individual after the other individuals present - which I seem to recall largely originated from Edinburgh and Leipzig themselves - passed away.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
Just a small addendum to the Pangolin discussion above:
When I was at Cuc Phuong last year they had 33 Sunda Pangolins that had come in that month, they will have been released back into the wild a long time ago now. Sooty points out that the cost to the wild population of attempting to establish an ex situ breeding programme would be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of hunting, but given that all the animals needed could be sourced from confiscations, it's even less than that. Of course, those individuals could be released instead, but given the numbers reported on this site for just single shipments does anyone really believe that is a moral act?
Using these confiscated animals would also spare the expense of capturing them from the wild. I've no doubt that the legal paperwork and organisation needed to bring them to Europe/US/Asia's better zoos would cost a lot more than I would expect, but it seems a lot of the conditions for this to happen are already in place.
(Note that I am sidestepping, barely, the issue of whether the whole idea is good or not. I'm just observing it's easier than some might think.)
When I was at Cuc Phuong last year they had 33 Sunda Pangolins that had come in that month, they will have been released back into the wild a long time ago now. Sooty points out that the cost to the wild population of attempting to establish an ex situ breeding programme would be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of hunting, but given that all the animals needed could be sourced from confiscations, it's even less than that. Of course, those individuals could be released instead, but given the numbers reported on this site for just single shipments does anyone really believe that is a moral act?
Using these confiscated animals would also spare the expense of capturing them from the wild. I've no doubt that the legal paperwork and organisation needed to bring them to Europe/US/Asia's better zoos would cost a lot more than I would expect, but it seems a lot of the conditions for this to happen are already in place.
(Note that I am sidestepping, barely, the issue of whether the whole idea is good or not. I'm just observing it's easier than some might think.)
Article ( in German ) about the new Gorilla-baby :
Nachwuchs zum Advent - Gorillababy geboren | Zoo Leipzig
Nachwuchs zum Advent - Gorillababy geboren | Zoo Leipzig