ZooChat Cup Group B: Berlin Zoo vs Wroclaw

[amur leopard]

300 invert species?? And I think that's a bit of an exaggeration on the sizes of both. However...

It does have 293 invert species... I know, I was surprised too. And this figure is from the most reliable source out there: @lintworm !

I understand your reasoning and certainly do not think your thought process is misplaced. I do still think "meh-ness" is being a bit harsh, but regardless I can't really argue against your position.

I don't think yours is either. I think meh-ness has several definitions. If you look at Wroclaw's herp exhibits from the point of view of someone who has only visited bad zoos, they are great. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who has visited a variety of zoos, they are all-right. However, looking at that after having looked at the Afrykarium makes them look meh at best, if you see what I mean. I guess given Wroclaw's high standard of exhibitry generally, it is a bit of a let down

Where are you getting 200 more fish species from? That is definitely not true and Wroclaw displays far more fish in far better displays.

Neither the 200 more fish nor the Wroclaw displaying far more fish is right...
Wroclaw displays 373 species of fish (going off ZTL, so probably slightly fewer) and Berlin hold 410 (going off @lintworm so at least we know that is right )
So Berlin pips Wroclaw in terms of species number. And then the exhibitry…. Wroclaw has fantastic fish exhibits and bad fish exhibits, but there are more excellent fish exhibits than bad fish exhibits, so Wroclaw does win on fish.

I say this as someone technically on your side, given I'm also voting 2-1 Berlin; you really shouldn't make sweeping remarks like that based on three or four carefully handpicked photographs from a collection you've never visited. Saying the reptile exhibits at Wroclaw are "mediocre and shabby at best" is both unfair and untrue, even IF you disregard the excellent crocodile exhibit in the Afrycarium.

Firstly they were not handpicked. If you had read what I wrote carefully when I first posted those photos on page 1 of the thread, I was actually using them in support of Wroclaw! So they are not carefully hand-picked, they are what I could find without going back further than 20 pages into the Wroclaw gallery.
Secondly, I say mediocre and shabby at best through the lens of this competition between 32 of the best zoos in the world. For almost every other zoo out there, this would be either up to standard or above. However, when looked at through the perspective of this competition, those exhibits are quite shabby and I have seen better at Pafos zoo. Honestly.
​

 

[TZDugong]

First of all, Berlin has more endangered reptiles, which is very important from a conservation standpoint.

You say this, yet you conveniently ignore that Wroclaw has far more endangered fish and amphibians and in total has more endangered species. One of your main arguments in favour of voting 3-0 Berlin is actually a big positive for Wroclaw.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

It does have 293 invert species... I know, I was surprised too. And this figure is from the most reliable source out there: @lintworm !

Oh seems I skimmed over that post when catching up on the thread late last night! Is there an annual report for Wroclaw we can see? Just like Berlin, Wroclaw is going to have more species all around than what's on-exhibit which is mainly what the ZTL fish lists comprise of.

I don't think yours is either. I think meh-ness has several definitions. If you look at Wroclaw's herp exhibits from the point of view of someone who has only visited bad zoos, they are great. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who has visited a variety of zoos, they are all-right. However, looking at that after having looked at the Afrykarium makes them look meh at best, if you see what I mean. I guess given Wroclaw's high standard of exhibitry generally, it is a bit of a let down

I understand what you're trying to say here then. Personally I'd aim for a clearer word to use, but I can't say I disagree with your point as you've explained it above.

Neither the 200 more fish nor the Wroclaw displaying far more fish is right...
Wroclaw displays 373 species of fish (going off ZTL, so probably slightly fewer) and Berlin hold 410 (going off @lintworm so at least we know that is right )
So Berlin pips Wroclaw in terms of species number. And then the exhibitry…. Wroclaw has fantastic fish exhibits and bad fish exhibits, but there are more excellent fish exhibits than bad fish exhibits, so Wroclaw does win on fish.

Again, ZTL isn't going to have an accurate or full species list for Wroclaw so comparing Berlin's annual report to Wroclaw's ztl list is unfair. And yes, I'd say Wroclaw does have more fish on-exhibit than Berlin does even if the latter has more total.

~Thylo​

 

[amur leopard]

Oh seems I skimmed over that post when catching up on the thread late last night! Is there an annual report for Wroclaw we can see? Just like Berlin, Wroclaw is going to have more species all around than what's on-exhibit which is mainly what the ZTL fish lists comprise of.

I tried to find one, but I guess the main barrier to my doing so is that I don't speak Polish...
I wish there was one readily available though, I see what you mean.

I understand what you're trying to say here then. Personally I'd aim for a clearer word to use, but I can't say I disagree with your point as you've explained it above.

Fair enough - meh can encompass a lot of things

Again, ZTL isn't going to have an accurate or full species list for Wroclaw so comparing Berlin's annual report to Wroclaw's ztl list is unfair. And yes, I'd say Wroclaw does have more fish on-exhibit than Berlin does even if the latter has more total.

OK

 

[ShonenJake13]

Just to make a point here...Berlin have relegated all of their ectotherms into one building so, whilst the building is great, they are limited in what they can achieve.
Wroclaw have six different exhibits heavily featuring ectotherms; Afrykarium, Terrarium, Aquarium, Odrarium, the desert house and the Madagascar house. Not all of them are modern in design and some may look “shabby”, but I’d rather certain people in this thread didn’t jump to conclusions based on a few photos on an Internet forum, and then act like they know the zoo inside and out.....I get that you aren’t going to have visited every zoo, but to act like an authority on said zoo because you’ve seen one picture would be like me saying I’m an expert on sushi preparation because I’ve seen a photo of a plate of sushi.
I prefer to see the methods others are using, which is directly asking people they know have been to the zoos to compare and then using that as judgement, as well as not just taking a handful of exhibits in one house and thinking that classifies the whole house. Even some of the worst exhibits in the world may still offer a gem or two that change the vote for some people!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the criticism of either zoo is unfounded, but since this is a very close game in this category I’d prefer that people thought very carefully about this and aren’t convinced to vote for something because of sweeping statements!

Neither zoo deserves a 3-0 win here. Everyone, from well-travelled zoonerds such as @TeaLovingDave and @snowleopard to folks that haven’t even left their home country, knows that.

 

[amur leopard]

Just to make a point here...Berlin have relegated all of their ectotherms into one building so, whilst the building is great, they are limited in what they can achieve.
Wroclaw have six different exhibits heavily featuring ectotherms; Afrykarium, Terrarium, Aquarium, Odrarium, the desert house and the Madagascar house. Not all of them are modern in design and some may look “shabby”, but I’d rather certain people in this thread didn’t jump to conclusions based on a few photos on an Internet forum, and then act like they know the zoo inside and out.....I get that you aren’t going to have visited every zoo, but to act like an authority on said zoo because you’ve seen one picture would be like me saying I’m an expert on sushi preparation because I’ve seen a photo of a plate of sushi.
I prefer to see the methods others are using, which is directly asking people they know have been to the zoos to compare and then using that as judgement, as well as not just taking a handful of exhibits in one house and thinking that classifies the whole house. Even some of the worst exhibits in the world may still offer a gem or two that change the vote for some people!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the criticism of either zoo is unfounded, but since this is a very close game in this category I’d prefer that people thought very carefully about this and aren’t convinced to vote for something because of sweeping statements!

Neither zoo deserves a 3-0 win here. Everyone, from well-travelled zoonerds such as @TeaLovingDave and @snowleopard to folks that haven’t even left their home country, knows that.

Having them all in one building can also be a plus for them. Often ectotherms are sidelined or exhibited as a sidekick to a large mammal. However, Berlin has made the centre of attention of that building...

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Having them all in one building can also be a plus for them. Often ectotherms are sidelined or exhibited as a sidekick to a large mammal. However, Berlin has made the centre of attention of that building...

Surely by that logic a collection which makes them the centre of attention in one large building AND exhibits them as an accompaniment to other species elsewhere is even better?

 

[amur leopard]

Surely by that logic a collection which makes them the centre of attention in one large building AND exhibits them as an accompaniment to other species elsewhere is even better?

Not necessarily... It takes the attention off them. For example, if you have a crocodile in a terrarium, the average amount of time you spend in front of their exhibit will probably be more than if the exhibit was, say, right next to the tigers.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Not necessarily... It takes the attention off them. For example, if you have a crocodile in a terrarium, the average amount of time you spend in front of their exhibit will probably be more than if the exhibit was, say, right next to the tigers.

So by that logic, if Berlin had the exact same collection within the Aquarium, but in addition had extra reptile exhibits dotted throughout the rest of the zoo, that would make it inferior where reptiles were concerned, in comparison to the current status quo?

Because that's what you are now arguing with regards to Wroclaw

 

[amur leopard]

So by that logic, if Berlin had the exact same collection within the Aquarium, but in addition had extra reptile exhibits dotted throughout the rest of the zoo, that would make it inferior where reptiles were concerned, in comparison to the current status quo?

Because that's what you are now arguing with regards to Wroclaw

No, it isn't. I am saying that it would be better to have those reptile exhibits that are dotted around the zoo in the main building (in certain cases), not that they shouldn't be added on...

 

[TeaLovingDave]

No, it isn't. I am saying that it would be better to have those reptile exhibits that are dotted around the zoo in the main building (in certain cases), not that they shouldn't be added on...

But given the fact you've (correctly, to some extent) remarked on the space constraints within the existing Terrarium at Wroclaw, if the reptile species elsewhere in the zoo *were* squeezed into the house you'd probably then mark it down for being too cramped

 

[amur leopard]

But given the fact you've (correctly, to some extent) remarked on the space constraints within the existing Terrarium at Wroclaw, if the reptile species elsewhere in the zoo *were* squeezed into the house you'd probably then mark it down for being too cramped

Originally I was saying that Berlin shouldn't be marked down for having the vast majority of their ectotherms in one house, which they shouldn't because if anything it is a plus. I was not saying that it was a negative to Wroclaw, you just twisted it into that. A plus for Berlin does not necessarily mean a negative for Berlin...

 

[amur leopard]

OK talk to you all next week and have nice weeks!

(I'm going to Rome for a week and won't be online for a whole week

 

[Dormitator]

Hooray, a pair of zoos I've been to so I feel justified in voting!

Visited Berlin in spring 2018, Wroclaw spring 2019.

I'm voting 2-1 Berlin. Though I absolutely loved Wroclaw for the Ectotherms, Berlin gets that extra point for having a floor for invertebrates in the Aquarium. Invertebrates are the most maligned taxa in zoos so seeing somewhere really give them space and attention is awesome. Wroclaw has inverts yes, but overall they just aren't exhibited in the same standards.

Anyone who's been to Wroclaw just can't not give them a point in my opinion. As a general rule I prefer species to be spread throughout a zoo which Wroclaw does rather well (I appreciate this slightly contradicts the previous statement about Berlin!), and were this a conversation solely on fishes it would win 2-1 hands down, bit I think the standard of exhibitry is also more variable. The Africarium is amazing for the fish yes, but some of the other areas just aren't to the same standard.

2-1 to Berlin for me, which is a shame for Wroclaw given that it is probably the second best zoo I've ever been to for Ectotherms, it deserved easier competition!

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Wroclaw has three buildings that are dedicated to nothing but ectotherms, so surely that would trump the one according to @amur leopard's logic? Additionally, while I agree that ectotherms are often made side attractions when incorporated into main exhibits*, the Afrykarium has several portions of the house where the ectotherms are the stars. From memory, the portion of the house with crocodiles has the crocodiles be the star attraction in that portion. The shark area obviously has the sharks as the stars there, too. So if anything, Wroclaw has ectotherms as star attractions more often throughout the zoo than Berlin does.

*I've never really understood why this is a criticism of zoos, though. Obviously if the mammals or birds get large fantastic enclosures and the ectotherms get crappy little squares in the wall with nothing to them then that's a fair criticism, but to say that it's a bad thing for zoos to incorporate lesser known animals into exhibits focusing on more famous animals is ridiculous to me. It's not the zoo's fault that most people won't care about a crocodile the way they'll care about a tiger, and there's nothing they can really do to change that beyond exhibiting them the way they'd exhibit them regardless of whether the tiger is there or not and hoping they succeed to captivating some people (which they always do in my experienced). I'd much rather a zoo include ectotherms into their exhibits as opposed to leaving them out in favor of limiting them to houses designed around them. Otherwise you'll have geographic or biome-centric exhibits that are missing a huge chunk of the kinds of life that live there. I always give a zoo extra points when I walk into the giraffe or elephant or rhino house, or even Red Panda house and find a few ectotherms included in. It makes for more lively exhibits.

~Thylo

 

[Coelacanth18]

but to say that it's a bad thing for zoos to incorporate lesser known animals into exhibits focusing on more famous animals is ridiculous to me. It's not the zoo's fault that most people won't care about a crocodile the way they'll care about a tiger, and there's nothing they can really do to change that beyond exhibiting them the way they'd exhibit them regardless of whether the tiger is there or not and hoping they succeed to captivating some people (which they always do in my experience). I'd much rather a zoo include ectotherms into their exhibits as opposed to leaving them out in favor of limiting them to houses designed around them.

I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't and have never bought into the idea that people inherently care less about "less famous animals" once they're already at the zoo. Sure, crocodiles aren't going to open the visitor floodgates, but I've come close to never seeing a reptile house that wasn't more crowded than the rest of the zoo. People often act as though invertebrates are neglected by zoos because they are underappreciated by visitors; while that may be true to some degree, the Monsanto Insectarium at Saint Louis still gets a fair amount of foot traffic. Fish displays are so popular that people often pay more to visit aquariums than zoos. It's just not that hard to make exhibits focusing on, emphasizing, or featuring ectotherms as a primary attraction and get visitors captivated by them; I think it's just a matter of which zoos put more effort into it and execute it more effectively.

Otherwise you'll have geographic or biome-centric exhibits that are missing a huge chunk of the kinds of life that live there.

That's a trade-off that I think is worth it, if in return you get things like state-of-the-art reptile houses that emphasize ectotherms and are popular with guests. Most geographic and biome-centric exhibits are woefully incomplete anyway, and I don't think most of them are done in a way that contextualizes ectotherms any better than a dedicated house can.

 

[Vision]

*I've never really understood why this is a criticism of zoos, though. Obviously if the mammals or birds get large fantastic enclosures and the ectotherms get crappy little squares in the wall with nothing to them then that's a fair criticism, but to say that it's a bad thing for zoos to incorporate lesser known animals into exhibits focusing on more famous animals is ridiculous to me. It's not the zoo's fault that most people won't care about a crocodile the way they'll care about a tiger, and there's nothing they can really do to change that beyond exhibiting them the way they'd exhibit them regardless of whether the tiger is there or not and hoping they succeed to captivating some people (which they always do in my experienced). I'd much rather a zoo include ectotherms into their exhibits as opposed to leaving them out in favor of limiting them to houses designed around them. Otherwise you'll have geographic or biome-centric exhibits that are missing a huge chunk of the kinds of life that live there. I always give a zoo extra points when I walk into the giraffe or elephant or rhino house, or even Red Panda house and find a few ectotherms included in. It makes for more lively exhibits.

I agree with the general idea and tone of this paragraph, but from my architectural/urbanist background I fundamentally have to disagree with this sentence:

"It's not the zoo's fault that most people won't care about a crocodile the way they'll care about a tiger, and there's nothing they can really do to change that".

Design, architecture, signage and media attention can do specifically these things - draw attention to animals or details that people otherwise aren't very interested in. Displaying otherwise fairly boring and dull animals in such a way that they can thrive and display rare natural behaviour are unfortunately still a rare treat, but they do exist - specifically when it comes to invertebrates excellent examples are Burger's fiddler crabs and Nürnberg's dung beetles. Species that, when displayed in ordinary terraria would do no more than receive a slight glance, are placed in the spotlight and actively draw in people that will look at them and be interested in learning more about them. Design and architecture have the power to change how people behave and how people perceive things.

A well-written piece that elaborates what I mean a bit more is "How to exhibit a bullfrog" by William G. Conway, which I've seen mentioned a few times on this site in the past, so which many people here will probably already have read. Going into exhibitry or husbandry with the mindset of 'people won't care for these animals anyways' will almost always create a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas drawing attention to smaller species and displaying them in such a way that visitors are forced to learn about them will very likely get them interested.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't and have never bought into the idea that people inherently care less about "less famous animals" once they're already at the zoo. Sure, crocodiles aren't going to open the visitor floodgates, but I've come close to never seeing a reptile house that wasn't more crowded than the rest of the zoo. People often act as though invertebrates are neglected by zoos because they are underappreciated by visitors; while that may be true to some degree, the Monsanto Insectarium at Saint Louis still gets a fair amount of foot traffic. Fish displays are so popular that people often pay more to visit aquariums than zoos. It's just not that hard to make exhibits focusing on, emphasizing, or featuring ectotherms as a primary attraction and get visitors captivated by them; I think it's just a matter of which zoos put more effort into it and execute it more effectively.

I agree 100%, which is what I was trying to imply when I said, "they always do". I think part of the issue is zoos assume people don't care about these animals, so they don't include them. That's part of the reason why I think we need to encourage zoos to include them more. That's a topic for another thread, though!

That's a trade-off that I think is worth it, if in return you get things like state-of-the-art reptile houses that emphasize ectotherms and are popular with guests. Most geographic and biome-centric exhibits are woefully incomplete anyway, and I don't think most of them are done in a way that contextualizes ectotherms any better than a dedicated house can.

But what about zoos like Wroclaw which have multiple examples of both? And again, if the exhibits emphasize the ectotherms as stars then why would it be inherently better to leave them out? To be honest, I find the claim that geographic exhibits are incomplete to begin with so there's no need to include anything other than mammals and birds into them completely baffling.

~Thylo

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I agree with the general idea and tone of this paragraph, but from my architectural/urbanist background I fundamentally have to disagree with this sentence:

"It's not the zoo's fault that most people won't care about a crocodile the way they'll care about a tiger, and there's nothing they can really do to change that".

Design, architecture, signage and media attention can do specifically these things - draw attention to animals or details that people otherwise aren't very interested in. Displaying otherwise fairly boring and dull animals in such a way that they can thrive and display rare natural behaviour are unfortunately still a rare treat, but they do exist - specifically when it comes to invertebrates excellent examples are Burger's fiddler crabs and Nürnberg's dung beetles. Species that, when displayed in ordinary terraria would do no more than receive a slight glance, are placed in the spotlight and actively draw in people that will look at them and be interested in learning more about them. Design and architecture have the power to change how people behave and how people perceive things.

A well-written piece that elaborates what I mean a bit more is "How to exhibit a bullfrog" by William G. Conway, which I've seen mentioned a few times on this site in the past, so which many people here will probably already have read. Going into exhibitry or husbandry with the mindset of 'people won't care for these animals anyways' will almost always create a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereas drawing attention to smaller species and displaying them in such a way that visitors are forced to learn about them will very likely get them interested.

I do agree with you and regret wording that sentence the way I did. I supposed I should have said, "it's not the zoo's fault that most people will be more attracted to a tiger before they are most reptiles," as that's more accurate to the point I was attempting to make. I do want to take back the "and there's nothing they can really do to change that" part, though.

To keep things on track with the match, the above is why I think we need to champion exhibitry such as the Afrykarium, which infuses ectotherms into an African house so expertly that when at least I think of the building, I think of the sharks and crocs before I think of any of the birds or even the fur seals.

~Thylo

 

[Coelacanth18]

To keep things on track with the match, the above is why I think we need to champion exhibitry such as the Afrykarium, which infuses ectotherms into an African house so expertly that when at least I think of the building, I think of the sharks and crocs before I think of any of the birds or even the fur seals.

I did find that to be a pretty compelling argument, and it's why I finally decided to vote 2-1 for Wroclaw in this match. Like others, it feels very close though; I was almost persuaded the other way by Berlin's better attention given to amphibians and inverts.