What groups of animals are "obligatory" for zoos?

In this thread, I noted that some animals are almost ubiquitous as zoo animals (at least in zoos that call themselves zoos), but are split between multiple species, making no particular species ubiquitous. However it seems like some groups of animals are absolutely required for a zoo to be a zoo, even if the particular member is an open question. Based on what I've seen, I think that the following constitute the minimum set of obligatory animals, the groups of animals which are almost universally present in zoos.

1. Member of the cat family, preferably Panthera spp.
2. Member of the dog family
3. Multiple species of even-toed ungulates
4. Bear
   
5. Member of the hawk family (usually an eagle)
   
6. Owl
   
7. New World vulture
   
8. Callitrichid primates (marmosets and/or tamarins)
9. Old World monkey
10. Multiple species of landfowl
11. Multiple species of waterfowl
12. Parrots, ideally large macaws
    
13. Estrildid finches
    
14. Funny-looking large birds (eg. flamingos, cranes, emus)
15. Funny-looking large rodents (eg. porcupines, capybaras, maras)
16. Funny-looking agamid lizard
17. Funny-looking non-passerine member of the higher landfowl (usually a laughing kookaburra)
18. Funny-looking mid-sized carnivoran (eg. skunks, raccoons, coatis)
    
19. Xenarthran (ie. funny-looking South American mammal)
20. Wallaby
    
21. Weasel-like carnivoran (usually an Asian small-clawed otter)
22. Member of the pig family
23. Member of the alligator family
24. Constricting snake
    
25. Tortoise or box turtle

Zoos in Massachusetts are much less likely to have primates since those are hard to get licenses for, but the Lupa Zoo I believe has all of the animals I listed as does the Capital of Texas Zoo. I've seen people complain that both the Austin Zoo and Christenson Zoo aren't "real zoos," but both of these have most of the animals I listed and the Austin Zoo violated their own rules on procurement to get a pair of funny-looking large rodents.

Many places which aren't even called zoos and which have completely different missions also have a large set of these. For example: the overlap between my list and the species native to Central Texas almost describes the Austin Nature and Science Center outside of the "Small Wonders" building.

That said: the absence of most of the birds and reptiles I listed I don't think would have visitors complaining it's not a zoo; they're just ways for zoos to have a variety of animals cheaply. Honorable mentions go to pigeons, corvids, squirrels, poison dart frogs, and tree frogs, all of which are incredibly common in zoos and other animal collections, likely for the same reason.

But I'm not trying to determine not what animals whose absence people would complain about, we already have threads on ABC species for that. I'm trying to figure out which groups of animals seem to constitute the common denominator among zoos, including the species which are probably included for the visitors' own good. (I'm going to do a Fantasy Zoo challenge thread on this later, but I'm genuinely interested in the question as well.)

So what do y'all think? What constitutes the minimum set of animals the typical zoo feels obligated to have?

 

1. Paying human visitors
2. Well-trained and enthusiastic staff
3. Efficient management
4. Benevolent stakeholders and sponsors

 

Already my home zoo has failed to acomplish this list at number 5

 

I've never been to a British zoo, so my observations are entirely based on North American zoos and almost entirely based on US zoos. Bald eagles are ubiquitous at American zoos, and red-tailed hawks are only marginally less common.

I noticed one user made a map of British zoos with falconry centers as separate thing, which we don't really have in the US. (We have falconers who perform at Ren Faires and Nature Centers usually have raptors with injured wings, but I've never heard of a falconry center.) I wonder if that plays a role too? Would British people take their children to a falconry center to see birds of prey? And do the centers demonstrate the birds in flight? That would be much more exciting than seeing an eagle in a cage.

 

From my experience, most zoos will have vultures and/or condors instead of hawks and/or eagles. Also bears in the UK have been declining until recently where they are becoming more plentiful again. Not even London has bears.

 

I somehow doubt that.

 

I'm not surprised by the presence of vultures. In the US at least king vultures are incredibly common and Andean condors fairly so. Both have their appeal for guests: king vultures are brightly colored and weird looking, Andean condors are huge. Turkey vultures are also somewhat common in US zoos, usually as part of a "vultures aren't so bad" exhibit. It's the absence of hawks and eagles in British zoos that surprises me.

 

The St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park only had 9 of these, or 10 depending on how you define #17. It is less than ten acres in size. Yet it receives 200,000+ visitors a year. This says something: it’s not always the species that define popularity, it’s got a great deal to do with how they’re exhibited as well.

 

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying this is what makes a good zoo, and there's a reason I put "obligatory" in quotes. I'm also not saying that zoos need these animals to succeed. The old Parrot Jungle is another example. It originally only had parrots and a few water birds and was quite successful. Then it tried to become a generic zoo by adding most of these things and changing its name to "Jungle Island" and it stagnated.

I'm saying that most zoos tend to do similar things, and one of those is making sure that certain groups of animals are represented. In the vein of the thread on which individual species are most common, I'm asking which groups of animals are pretty much always represented in AZA zoos and questionable roadside zoos alike.

 

Hm, I wanna say that most zoos have some kind of aquatic mammal, usually an otter, sometimes a pinniped. In the US, cetaceans aren't terribly common outside of dedicated aquariums.

 

From the groups you mentioned, I think that various are absent in many small and medium zoos, overall estrildid finches, agamid lizards, xenarthrans and pigs, and in a lesser exent dogs, hawks, owls, new world vultures, large rodents and mid-size carnivoras. I would reduce the "obligated" groups to the remaining ones, tough for sure if we start investigating in Zootierliste we will find a lot fo zoos that have a Zoo in the title (not aquariums, parks, wildlife sanctuaries, etc) and don't have one or another of these animals.

 

In terms of quality, one of the best zoos I ever visited was the old Otter Trust near Bungay in Suffolk. Just four species of otter displayed (with 2 subspecies of one of them) in wonderful enclosures, plus a lot of common waterfowl. I wish I had visited Len Williams's Woolly Monkey Sanctuary in its heyday - that just had one species I think.
The choice of species doesn't really matter: it's the quality of the staff and the imagination of the management that make the difference.

 

I think most of the zoos I think of as "small zoos" are actually mid-sized zoos. The only truly small zoos I've been to are the Christensen Zoo, the Austin Nature and Science Center, and Magic Wings, a butterfly place near where I'm from. However they all basically have a subset of these plus a few other things that reflect their "specialty": petting zoo animals, native birds and reptiles, and butterflies respectively. The Austin Zoo is a mid-sized zoo which doesn't have all of these but they're somewhat handicapped by their collections policy and still broke that policy to obtain porcupines.

I basically compiled the list by asking "What kinds of animals are 1. present in every large zoo I've been to, 2. present in both the Lupa Zoo and Capital Texas Zoo (the two roadside zoos I've been to recently enough to remember) and 3. common even in small collections?"

I suppose a better question than "what's the absolute minimum that a typical smallish zoo will have?" is "What's the prototype, the quintessential collection that large zoos encompass, small zoos borrow from, and all mid-sized zoos will strive for?

Missing the point again. I'm not saying these are the species I want zoos to have. I'm saying these are the groups of animals I think zoos tend to treat as essential and asking for other perspectives on what these animals are.

 

Are you moving the goal posts?

 

I think I know what you want to convey, but frankly, your take on current taxonomy might need some improvement...

 

Lists will differ by time and place, but in the UK there are two tiers: one for small collections of a kind now in decline (RIP Southport, Gatwick etc), and the other for big city and country park zoos. Canis sp. are fairly rare there, in the latter, despite the cultural importance of wolves to the Brits, whereas Panthera sp. cats are ubiquitous in large collections. Down decades the number of elephants, chimps, bears, and camels has declined (probably others too), but there is still an "ABC zoo" feel to them. Meerkats, short clawed otters, squirrel monkeys, ring tailed lemurs, cotton top tamarins, golden pheasants, barn owls and the like make up an ubiquitous fauna of "shed city" zoos with short cash and space. So it depends on the size and location (catchment area not just country).

 

No. Please re-read my opening post.

If I understand you, your complaint seems to be that I'm using lay terms wherever possible and that some of my categories have criteria beyond taxonomy. Is that correct?

 

I don't get the taxonomic thing either: why not, for example, criticise him for saying waterfowl instead of anseriforms or anatids?

 

I did.

I don't believe it. The minimum number of animal species is one, in my opinion, and it could be almost any species, provided that people are prepared to come to see it.