"Ideal" number of species in a zoo

Hello,

do you have a guess about the "ideal" number of species in a zoo (hypothesis of a generalist facility, with representents of taxa from all the major terrestrial and marine ecosystems), according to you, in order to have a good diversity of species and not to bore the "average" visitors (for example, I doubt that showing 20 species of deer, pheasants or South American monkeys would be really attractive for most visitors) ?

Thanks.

 

I think this ideal number of species is somewhere between 200 and 300. This quantity of species is enough to show the most important species, some special and a few 'little brown jobs'. Good exhibitry can also be possible for all taxa if we calculate with an area of 15-20 hectares, which is generally not true for species-rich zoos.

 

I think that 200-300 species of medium to large species is way too much for 15 hectars. Yes, if you keep mostly fish or herps or small birds, it can be ok.

Regarding the first question, how many species is ideal for a generalist zoo. I would say somewhere 80-100 actually is more than enough. Even 50 can do perfectly if majority of it is well-known mammals and maybe few larger birds, in nice naturalistic enclosures. Average visitor wants to see zebras, lions, sea lions, penguins etc. They don´t care about small brown critters or ducks. Those are just curator´s hobby.

 

Diversity is important in my opinion. It has an attractive effect on the visitors.
For example, the new Equatorial Dome of the Zooparc de Beauval (open since 2020, nearly a zoo itself) has no more than a dozen of very charismatic species (Manatee, Giant Otter, American Alligator, Pygmy Hippo, Giant Turtle, Fruit Bat, Komodo Dragon, Douc Langur, False Gharial, Harpy Eagle, maybe Arapaima and Squirrel Monkey) but the nearly 200 species displayed there creates a jungle ambiance liked by the people, even if the average visitor wouldn't care about the exact names of fish, birds or small reptiles displayed in this building.

I will create a poll about this topic, in order to have more comprehensive answers.

 

Well... you would expect the bigger the zoo, the more animal species can be kept, but that's not really true. For example, Antwerp Zoo (12 hectares in size) has more animal species than Pairi Daiza (75 hectares in size). This is because Pairi Daiza has more space for its large species (such as the Asian elephants that have an 8-hectare enclosure).
Antwerp Zoo has many old buildings and less room for large species, so instead they have many small species in e.g. the Reptile Building, Aquarium and Bird House (although these numbers have declined significantly in just 10 years.)

 

It CAN have an attractive effect on visitors, but that is not a given and depends on the species in question, their presentation and the expectations of the visitors. As @Jana pointed out, showcasing a great diversity of "small brown critters" that look all the same to most visitors will not be perceived positively. Just as keeping a lot of species (especially popular ones) under apparently inadequate conditions and presenting them badly.

I don't think there is an "ideal" number.

 

What is your mean of the number of species, the number of species on display, or the number of species that the zoo owns in total? They are different concepts, like Omaha Henry Doorly, where has 1300+ species in total, but only 458 on the display, more than half of its collections are behind the scenes. If your main collections are invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles, it is not hard to go beyond the number of 500+, or even 800+.
The space of the zoo also matters, the ideal species for a 20-hectares zoo and a 200-hectares zoo are definitely different.

 

I picked 100-200 because I think a lot of zoos have this amount on average and I'd rather see fewer species if it meant their exhibits were world-class instead of subpar due to being kept in smaller/outdated enclosures.

 

What do you mean by the 'most important species'? I suspect this is a subjective term, rather than an objective one. For many zoos, the 'most important species' are meerkats, ring-tailed lemurs, Asiatic small-clawed otters and other species that are 'Marmite' to Zoochatters.

 

I promise I’m not being contrarian, but I think less than 50 is optimum. As much as I love ‘mega-zoos’ with huge collections, they are incredibly stressful to visit half the time, especially if you aim to take photos, whereas I’ve never had a stressful time at a smaller zoo, you can actually get round everything in good time, and often times the welfare is above average (though not always). Think Exmoor, Hamerton or Highland Wildlife Park, or other examples outside of the UK (The Wilds, maybe?), forgive me I’m not familiar with many. They just make for more enjoyable and relaxed visits.

 

Same, especially when you only have one day to visit and are trying to film every species in a collection!

 

I talk about all the species, including fish and invertebrate (I take them in count, in exhibits like aquarium, insectarium but I could imagine a greenhouse with free-ranging insects for example ; I really like these exhibits), assuming that most species are actually displayed (I don't know examples as Henry Doorly where most species are off-exhibit).

The concept of "most important species" could refer to species most expected to see in a zoo for average people.
When you say to someone "what species can you see in a zoo", he/she would say Lions, Elephants, Giraffes... Obviously, there are smaller animals common in zoos, and quite easy and cheap to handle and breed. For me they remain interesting, for their behaviour, ecology (the Meerkat has an interesting social structure, and has became a symbol of African wildlife, probably due to the Disney picture "The Lion King") and even conservation (Ring-tailed Lemur is globally Endangered, and Small-clawed Otter is Vulnerable).

I don't really like such small collections, except in very special cases (for example wildlife parks that offer very good, nearly natural, life conditions for the species, maybe like Highland Wildlife Park).
I would prefer visiting a facility with many species, even if they are small reptiles, fish or even insects.

 

For me the notion of "ideal" corresponds to a kind of harmony and balance in the animal collections, in the hypothesis of a generalistic park (not entirely a vivarium, aquarium, falconry nor themed park with only monkeys, felines...).
Some emblematic, charismatic species are needed, but it's also interesting to have rare, poorly known species, and also commoner "background" animals. Elephants and Humboldt Penguins are good, but Keas and Tree Kangaroos too.
The comfort for the visitors has also to be considered, it would be better if they can see the most popular species in a single day, and see more species if they have enough time.

 

@Haliaeetus So according to your idea, only a generalistic collection in a park scenario could be an "ideal" zoo? I somehow doubt that.
As correctly pointed out by @Chlidonias , your definition of an "ideal zoo" falls through due to the different individual interpretations of what constitutes an "ideal zoo".
As you could witness yourself in our discussion regarding your fictional zoo project.

 

No, it's an hypothesis.
There are many other models of animal / wildlife parks that can be called "zoos".
I've purposely discarded them in favour of this hypothesis, in order to avoid ambuiguities and simplify the problem.

 

It's an (i.e. your) opinion, not an hypothesis.

 

I do consider myself as an ignoramus, but I thought that an hypothesis is based on an observation.

Now I do see that you bring up how the visitors of zoo parc de beauval love the new Equatorial Dome, which may count as an observation. However visitor opinions alone doesn't make a zoo "ideal" for the animals that live within the zoo or other people who may not have liked the zoo or the exhibit.

When the aspect of a zoo is something as subjective as "ideal", then I will echo Batto's statement of your hypothesis as being an opinion.

 

I went with 100 to 200, I'd say more than 100 but under 200 is the ideal number of species for me. My ideal zoo would have about 40 or 50 large main attraction animals and the rest would be smaller species in vivariums, aquarium tanks and things like butterfly walkthroughs.

 

100-200. Fewer animals with more space. I'm including an aquarium or butterfly house in that too.