Just noticed the following incorrect information with regards to Zoo Berlin's studbooks.... As noted, the only two studbooks held by Zoo Berlin are the pair of euplerids! Edwards Pheasant - Prague Gaur - Paris Jardin des Plantes Pileated Gibbon - Vacant, formerly held by Zurich Persian Leopard - Lisbon Rusty-spotted Cat - Frankfurt Sloth Bear - Munster Indian Rhinoceros - Basel Visayan Deer - Landau Takin - HWP In other words..... don't make things up
Sorry, but in all fairness I need to step in here. This comment is unjustified. Amur Leopard has evidently taken the above information from this page: At Zoo Berlin It clearly makes the claim that a) Berlin participates in two thirds of all international endangered species programs, and b) can certainly be read to imply that it operates the stud books listed by AL. In short, AL isn’t making things up, Berlin Zoo is.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as @amur leopard in calling it offensive or stereotyping, but I can see where they're coming from. A lot of zoos try to incorporate cultural theming into their exhibits, and it often misses the mark and comes off as exoticism. I'm unclear about whether that's the case here, as I'm honestly just confused by the indoor enclosure as a whole. I do think this is a misinterpretation partially stemming from the lack of clarity on that webpage. I think the list is of studbooks that the Berlin Zoo participates in, rather than the ones they operate. This could be implied from their first statement, but the page doesn't say it explicitly; it just begins listing studbooks with no stated purpose. And the first statement does appear obviously false. That being said, for future matches how relevant is it what studbooks a zoo holds? I've never understood this to be of much significance, since studbook holders are tied to individual people rather than institutions.
Yes, I don’t know precisely what Berlin means that page to say, but my point is that AL’s interpretation is fundamentally a reasonable one. It’s good to correct wrong information, but a knee-jerk presumption of bad faith is unkind and unfair. AL has done *exactly* what I recently encouraged him to do, which is try to contribute by going and researching things he doesn’t know about, and then posting what he learns. It’s not his fault if Berlin’s webpage isn’t the reliable source it should be. That’s a relevant subject for debate and not for me to decide.
Yes, I completely agree with you. I was simply adding what I hoped was a clarification for everyone of Zoo Berlin's webpage Good to know, although my question was more of a general opinion poll rather than a rule-based query directed at you. Personally I'm not going to use them for my own considerations, but I was curious to see if others would.
I am sorry for posting wrong information. I should have noticed actually because I was doing a project on pheasant studbook holders and could easily have remembered about the Edward's pheasants. Sorry for all the confusion, I didn't mean to cause it, AL
What did you mean to vote for? Does that mean the vote can be changed @CGSwans and his committee (for the sake of correctness and percentages if nothing else)?
Except AL didn't list all the Asian species presented in those lists, only some of them - which suggested deliberate selection of species to claim - but fair enough, I'll retract that remark It's all moot now anyway as the round appears to have ended now.
All water under the bridge then - and you've learned to be more analytical of online sources, which is no poor thing.
Well the first time he brought it up he called it "offensive towards Indian people", which is why I included that in. He never explicitly said it was stereotyping to be fair. I do agree it's an odd choice, though. Genuine question, does an international studbook for Sloth Bears even exist? I know the US and Europe have always managed their populations separately. I would say studbooks are relevant only because said zoo usually also has an excellent history/present with the taxa in question. There's not set rule afaik, but often times the zoo with the studbook is the zoo that has the most success in breeding and husbandry. ~Thylo
I think we can all agree, then, that surely the zoo's involvement with a certain species should hold more value than whether or not the person managing the studbook works at that zoo? I personally don't think comparisons of lists of studbooks managed by a zoo hold much value in these threads, and think a list of species that the zoo has good breeding records with would be much more valuable information.
I would agree, yes. Perfect example within this very thread is Chester not managing the babirusa studbook yet doing the better job managing the population! ~Thylo
Except babirusas are not applicable to this match since they do not live in the definition of Asia that we are using for the matches.
But it's still an example which was mentioned in the course of the discussion which I suspect was his point.
I thought @CGSwans posted a couple pages ago saying Sulawesi and the Philippines counted as Asia? Regardless, YOU included babirusa on your mammal list for Berlin and also never took them off. ~Thylo
