it has come to my attention that some biogeographical concepts garner far more attention in zoo exhibits and are much more likely to be the focus of exhibits than others. For example, biomes and Island processes form a focal point to many larger zoo exhibits. In contrast more famous biological concepts are completely ignored. I cant think of a single exhibit (love to know if i'm just being ignorant) devoted to the process of evolution/natural selection. More generally I find a disheartening lack of key concepts and philosophies in zoo exhibits which seem too content to simply exhibit zoos geographically. In contrast tv wildlife documentaries seem to increasingly embrace more complex concepts and questions of conservation. Perhaps it is easier, for example, to portray the movement of species as overwhelmingly negative, unnatural and rather confined to the specific species being displayed as opposed to the wider questions? this whole area presents a different way of exhibiting species which would be far more interesting, unique and in line with the questions of modern conservation. Thoughts, feelings, examples? much love
One advantage to displaying species with a similar geographic environment together is that it can give zoo goers an idea of what that natural environment is like since most people will be unable to visit said place. It is true that it is impossible to display that ecosystem in complete detail but it can give more of an idea than housing species from completely seperate areas together. However I do get you point as to displaying concepts such as evolution and I think that exhibits focusing on food chains and predator/prey ideas would be an interesting concept (are there any examples of this that people know of?)
For sure it could be quite easy to merge geographic and more innovative ways of displaying the species. for example an exhibit of south-east asian, oceania and australian species could quite easily double up as an exhibit to Alfred Russell Wallace. there are so many options, as you say predator-prey relationships, food production, different threats (climate change, disease etc), different speciations, species translocations etc etc and to ignore these possibilities rather fails the educational potential of zoos
Consider what a zoo has to work with: animals to be displayed and visitors who have come for a variety of reasons (with deep thought and education being low on their list). If the zoo attempts to tightly choreograph the experience the visitors will simply rush by it to get a better look at the defecating elephant. And so we present Elephant Odyssey at the San Diego Zoo. It tried to take on a big topic but does any visitor "get it"? Sitting in front of a television or a great book we are expecting to go for a ride, experience a story. These are better venues for tackling larger ideas. For a zoo to be successful I believe would require a re-invention of the zoo experience. Not to say that is impossible or undesirable. Just more ambitious than almost any zoo cares to take on.
But it shouldn't require a massively choreographed experience to dramatically improve how these issues are presented by zoos? it shouldnt require any more resources, just the imagination to put orangutans next to marsupials (to resuse my previous example). as you say its a lack of 'ambition', and that's incredibly sad
"Presenting" a concept is a far cry from teaching it. You can find all sorts of fascinating biology in zoo signs but few bother. Of course, a great docent giving a tour can get the job done.
I think big concepts should be explored, but a number are difficult to do with available species. The Wallace example could be well done with parrots however, and would be an ideal concept for somewhere like Chester Zoo or Jurong Bird Park to bring in to their new developments. Adaptive radiations are another good example of something that could be shown, but then you end up with many similar species, which might not be a good display. South American Primates might work though. Isolation and speciation could be brilliantly demonstrated using Galapagos tortoise species, but this isn't really done - especially if they could be shown in somewhat different looking enclosures (rather than all in the same barren pen). San Diego Zoo could do this given the diversity of these species they hold. Zoos rarely use multi-species displays to illustrate evolution, but I think they should try and do this more, as these are important concepts that would greatly help people to understand the world around them.
I think zoos are a bit lazy and copy each other. Geographical concept which is common today is just one of many possible ideas. 100 years ago systematic concept was typical, and it is much easier from the zoo point of view (carnivore exhibits and carnivore staff are in Cat House etc). However, this geographic exhibits were originally viewed much more complex than today. Carl Hagenbeck at the start of 20. century created whole artificial panoramas with several very natural exhibits. It is much trivialized today, when 'Africa' is just one patch of grass, 'Asia' is another patch of grass etc. Unusual concepts I know of include Etosha house in Basel. This exhibit is designed to show food chain, with plants, herbivores and predators. I think it is only partially successful, mostly because it is also geographical exhibit and very detailed copy of Kalahari dry savanna. Another concept I can think of are several Paleolithic exhibits in Europe, showing animals of Ice Age like Przewalski horses, wisents etc. Then is Darwineum in Rostock, which presents evolution as you asked - it starts with Galapgos tortoises, then there are audiovisual exhibits showing Big Bang, fossils, dinosaur model, some invertebrates and living fossils, great apes and some display on genetics. Gigantic but only partially successful in my opinion, mostly because it is educationally very basic, on the level of primary school. There is old but perhaps better educationally Biochron exhibit in Emmen, showing evolution of life, again living fossils and dinosaur models, also sharks, butterflies and some cool prehistoric dioramas. I can think of many other concepts: It would be great to show for example age of great geographic discoveries, where people like Wallace, Humboldt or Steller traveled very dangerous exotic countries and discovered all these wonderful tropical animals. How Alexander van Humboldt (?) felt, when he climbed on a mountain ridge in Panama and was the first human to see two oceans at once: Atlantic and Pacific? One could do exhibit about ethology, showing solitary and colonial animals, like social insects, mole rats, colonies of birds and herds of primates. One could do exhibit how biologists really study animals, showing camping equipment, camera traps, radio collars, telemetry, lab examining animal remains and so on. Bronx zoo tigers give some taste of it. One could do exhibit of anthropogenic landscapes, showing animals living in cities and farmland dominated landscapes, geckos, raccoons, peregrine falcons, owls, things like leopards in India and anti-predator defenses of people.
An example of the famous explorer theme can be seen at the Roger Williams Park Zoo. The zoo has an exhibit called the Marco Polo Adventure Trek. It features animals that Marco Polo could have encountered on his expeditions to China and the surrounding areas. This exhibit has snow leopards, red crowned cranes, sichuan takins, red pandas, asiatic black bears, and dromedary camels.
The paleolithic exhibits I find particularly interesting, its a zoo natural history museum but raises interesting questions surrounding pleistocene rewilding, extinction processes etc. Of course one could argue all the horrid villages and anthropocentric content of a lot of exhibits in zoos is an exploration of identity and human-nature dichotomy/non dichotomy but thats all getting a bit heavy over some badly done huts next to the giraffe enclosure now.
Doesn't Basel have some interesting ways of presenting animals in their newer houses? I don't have the information to hand but no doubt someone knows more about it...
