The Phylogenetics of Zoo Exhibits: The Reptile House Problem

Reptile houses are amongst the most common types of zoo exhibits, with the majority of major U.S. zoos (and I'd presume zoos abroad as well) having some-sort of reptile house. Many of these buildings are historic, but there are also numerous examples of zoos building new reptile houses in recent years. However, when looking at these new reptile houses, one large group of reptiles is suspiciously missing from the display: birds. Phylogenetic and DNA evidence have made it very clear that if reptiles are to be considered a valid, monophyletic group, then birds must be included in this group. However, every zoo reptile house I'm aware of treats them as a paraphyletic group, keeping the non-avian reptiles in a reptile house but no birds. Furthermore, some zoos break these phylogenetic bounds even further- housing amphibians inside reptile houses, instead of giving a distinct exhibit for them (to be fair, at least some zoos are now calling them "Amphibian and Reptile House" to acknowledge that frogs are in fact not reptiles). So really, given that birds phylogenetically fit in the reptile clade, and crocodilians being more closely related to birds than they are to snakes or lizards, then this poses a very serious question about reptile houses in zoos: Despite data showing that birds are in fact reptiles, and accounting for the fact many zoos have built new reptile houses in recent years, why haven't zoos incorporated bird exhibits into reptile houses? Is this only due to differing care requirements, or are there bigger reasons as to why this is true? A reptile house incorporating birds is certainly an exhibit I'd wish to see zoos build in the future, as this is more phylogenetically accurate than excluding birds from the reptile houses.

 

Because husbandry ultimately trumps taxonomy in zoo exhibit design.

 

Just the differing requirements I suspect, there's nothing deeper to it. It makes zero functional sense to have a reptile house with a few bird aviaries. Plus visitors will think it's a bit odd. Yes, birds are reptiles but in daily life they will still be considered separate for a while to come I suspect. I'm not sure anyone on here has fully come to terms with it, let alone the general public. I for one still think of birds as a separate class even though I am fully aware they fall under the same 'umbrella'.

 

Yes, husbandry should trump phylogeny, but having a building housing both birds and reptiles doesn't go against any husbandry standards. I've seen/heard of a fair number of successful mixed species that contain both birds and reptiles, such as red-footed or yellow-footed tortoises in tropical aviaries, turtles incorporated into aviaries, desert tortoise/burrowing owl mixes, gharials mixed with free-flying birds, and more. None of these mixes are bad husbandry, let alone housing them in the same building. Furthermore, reptiles have been incorporated into non-reptile houses for years, and can easily be held in Rainforest-themed buildings, Desert-themed buildings, Nocturnal buildings, etc.- all themes that could also include birds. Different husbandry requirements doesn't mean that the animals can't be kept in the same building, especially if housing them in the same building is more phylogenetically accurate.

Do you have any reasoning for why visitors will find this odd? Plenty of zoos have reptiles and birds incorporated into exhibits themed around other concepts, why would they find it weird seeing them next to each other in this sort of reptile house? Especially, if designed correctly, a zoo would easily be able to make the exhibit feel cohesive, sort of like the Lincoln Park Zoo's Small Mammal-Reptile House making a cohesive-feeling exhibit out of both reptiles and mammals.

 

I'm not trying to "turn an absolute non-issue into an issue". I just felt that, as someone who's very interested in phylogenetics, that this would be an interesting topic to discuss. Reptile houses, and other taxonomically devised exhibits have been a standard offering of zoos for decades, and it's an interesting trend to see more of these reptile houses are being built, even when the science of what a reptile is has changed. I'm not saying that reptile houses, as historically designed, need to be demolished or turned into bird-inclusive exhibits, just thinks that in the future it'd be good to see new reptile houses incorporate birds into their design.

As for your dolphin show question, it is a false equivalency. Dolphins/cetaceans remain a valid, monophyletic clade even if it falls into the same larger clade as the artiodactyls. Reptiles are not a valid, monophyletic clade unless birds are included.

 

The small mammal-reptile house concept works because the exhibits are design-wise very similar and the animals are of similar size and needs. It therefore doesn't seem incongruous. You also mention exhibits with birds and reptiles built around a specific theme - these work because they are linked by a themed area (as a theoretical example an aviary for weavers and then a terrarium for agamas), and as a result they don't appear incongruous or odd, but rather immersive. A building with a vague bird/reptile theme lacks any sort of theme in the visitors' eyes. You might say the zoo could try and justify it by putting up signs about how birds are reptiles, but most people don't read the signage and I think you'd find most people would be far more confused leaving the house than entering it.

 

Dallas had a shared reptile-bird house, until the herps eventually took over

 

My first thought after reading this was “Doesn’t Brookfield have two reptile and bird houses?”. And they do. There’s two examples of what you want within the same zoo.

 

Taxonomically arranged zoo exhibits are falling out of fashion these days, so I struggle to see how phylogenetic accuracy should effect a zoo exhibit's viability. Reptile houses are still commonplace in zoos all around the world, especially in colder countries, as reptiles usually require indoor access and expensive features such as heating and clean pools, so placing them in a single building is way more cost-effective and makes functional sense. I personally see no issue with reptiles and birds having separate houses.

That said, it is quite subjective, and if shared reptile/bird houses are something that you would like to see more in the future then that is fine; however it is certainly not a 'problem' as the title of this thread suggests.

 

Most zoos that have a whole herp house also have various aviaries. Husbandry-wise they require different foods, different systems of care. They also tend to have dedicated keepers. While yes, we now know how close herps and birds are, the general public doesn't know that and aren't going to care. It's much easier to have a herp building and a bird building, overall, than mixed species buildings, especially ones where there isn't a regional theme (ie Madagascar).

 

I think a good way for a zoo to tell the general public that birds are reptiles is to have a standard aviary with nothing but birds up until the very end, where there’s a crocodilian habitat (probably for a smaller species like a Dwarf Caiman or Dwarf Crocodile). A sign would say “Wait, that’s not a bird!”, and explain the relationship between birds and reptiles. I think a crocodilian would work best for this because crocodilians and birds are both archosaurs.

 

I don't like "houses" dedicated to particular groups, as I think they are restrictive.

However it makes sense for (generally) smaller animals that have the same needs to be housed together, hence the reptile house, aquarium and the bug house.

Birds vary considerably in requirements and therefore you could never have a bird house-how would you house ostrich and hummingbird in the same building?

Let alone house them with lizards, snakes and crocodiles! How big would this proposed building be? The size of an aircraft carrier?

This is a hugely over-complicated and remarkably daft idea when a small display board or a keeper talk in a reptile house explaining the connection could impart the information effectively.

 

I think the main issue here is that birds require quite a bit more space than reptiles do, on average. There are some decent bird/reptile mixes, but it increases the space needed. It's really just best for sake of easier and better husbandry procedures. And really, even with signage, the average member of the public will probably either be confused or not notice the intended phylogenetic connection. Grouping phylogenetically gets clumsy, especially once you reach fish.

 

Yeah, in essence we're all just fish with lungs and legs,

 

Because calling their reptile house "non-avian reptile house" is clumsy and the public dont really treat them the same. Same as how most time dinosaur are referred as dinosaur even though they mean "non-avian dinosaur"

 

Reptile Gardens in Rapid City, South Dakota doesn't exhibit birds as reptiles in the sense I think you're talking about, but it us a good collection of both in their main central exhibit.

 

I see the point, and I've often gone for this approach, but ultimately reptiles and birds have different requirements... however, I think that a mixed reptile and bird house can be quite successful, either having larger indoor exhibits for birds, or surrounding a standard reptile house with outdoor aviaries; this approach would look quite nice in my opinion.
Plus, here's another matter; do amphibians belong in reptile houses? I think they do, but perhaps in a certain section of it, with plenty of differentiating info. What do you all think?

 

I have often considered how interesting it would be to do an exhibit that uses living reptiles and birds to discuss the evolution and origin of birds - but I also realized such an exhibit could not simply be a redress or retheme of an existing bird or reptile building and would need to be entirely new and on a footprint akin to a proper zoo complex. I think for many zoos, they would feel that money would be better spent on something biogeographic than on a massive taxonomic building, especially as aviaries and reptile houses often lack superstar draws.

I think in most cases reptile houses are an artifact of an older era in concept that happen to have outlasted the small mammal houses and aquatic bird houses and so forth of yesteryear.

Living by Brookfield Zoo, I am used to birds and reptiles sharing buildings - while this sounds like a representation of accurate science, it is clear that Reptiles and Birds is the result of the zoo having a large reptile collection that needed a home, with the free flight room feeling like an artifact. Feathers and Scales has a couple of aviaries but only in fewer exhibits, and both buildings' bird collections are mostly (definitely not exclusively!) from the South American rainforest. I like the concept of using living animals to illustrate the evolution of birds -- educating visitors about that process gives a much stronger reason to include both groups and keep them in focus together. Neither exhibit succeeds in painting this picture. A shame I think.

 

Similarly what about arthropods? Most reptile houses I've been in have the odd arachnid or stick insect in a small exhibit or two.
Given reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods are typically rather similar in requirements of exhibit size and appearance, as well as average maintenance, I think it's usually rather handy for those taking care of them. I prefer to go by what's best for the animals and the keepers taking care of them - Green Sea Turtle and Spider Tortoise may be closely related, but they have vastly different requirements. Same situation with Salties and Electric Blue Dwarf Gecko. For husbandry purposes they may be better off placed in different areas of the zoo.