There have been a few scientific studies that have tried to identify which animals are more popular with the average zoo visitor. These studies have however often been severely limited in their scope, as they generally focused on only one zoo. Their results can thus often not be applied to other zoos. A study from Durrell Zoo found that people appreciate endangered more than non-endangered. This is probably closely linked to the uncommonly strong conservation message of the respective zoo. Whereas such case study approaches are valuable, an expert based approach could add a different perspective and that is where you come in. I would be very interested to see how zoochatters quantitatively rank zoo animal species based on their popularity. Such an approach would off-course not be limited to a single collection and would span a large range of nationalities (though still skewed towards native English speakers). So is likely applicable to a wider range of zoos. I am interested in this, as I am planning to do an analysis of whether we can predict zoo attendance by a few simple factors (first for Europe, but there is scope to extend). This would include things like number of species (potentially separated between classes), size, GDP, population of surrounding area, etc. A key factor would probably be the presence in a zoo of popular animals.There is currently one study that has done a comparable analysis: A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation They used animal size as a proxy, which is something found in a study in Chester which identified larger animals are generally more popular. This relationship is probably broadly valid , but ignores animals like Meerkats and Lemurs. I therefore think that we can get a more nuanced view when there are enough people contributing with the proposed ranking system. I am aware that there are previous threads which have discussed this topic, but none has tried to quantify it as far as I am aware. The rules: - You can name any species or species group (e.g. small monkeys) that you think is applicable, NOT individual animals. - Please give each species (group) you think is important a weighing between 0-50. The maximum weighting you give does not need to be 50. Consider the weightings carefully! The higher the weighting the more important you think the species is to the average zoo visitor. - Species groups do not necessarily have to be taxonomically correct. - There is no limit to the number of species (groups) you can name. - Any species group you do not write down is considered to be unimportant and gets a score of 0. - These weigthings should be based on your personal experience for average zoo visitors, not what you hope to be true or your personal preference. - Do not limit the choices to your local zoo(s), the inclusion of species like Koala, Giant Panda or Manta Rays, which are rare in zoos, but generally considered popular, is crucial to this exercise. - You can post your list here OR send me a PM, if you would like to keep it private. - There is no adapting the scores after you have posted, though I might allow adding species (groups) if you obviously forgot something. - Additionally please list the number of zoos you have visited and whether you work(ed) in a zoo, which are indicators I will use as a measure of experience. So how does it look? You simply post a list, with for each species (group), a score, like this: Hypothetical example list Aardvark 20 points Tarsier (any species) 10 points Blue Whale 50 points Great Spotted Woodpecker 5 points Poisonous fish 2 points Personal info 148 zoos visited Not worked in a zoo Remember that the weighting should apply to what you think an average zoo visitor would like to see, not your personal preference. I am curious about your choices. Once enough people have responded, I will create a consensus list, corrected for experience. This list will be used in the analyses and I will keep you updated on the progress off-course.