Bad news, one suspects, for Belgium's first entrant into the field, because the category is one of London's real strengths: small mammals. The concept behind this poll is explained here: ZooChat Cup In summary, the rules of the game are as follows: - You may choose whatever criteria you like to decide how to vote, as long as it only relates to the category above. - You can use whatever resources you like to inform your vote, including Zoolex, Zootierliste, the ZooChat gallery, trip reviews, zoo maps, books and whatever else you can think of. You don't have to have visited both zoos to vote. - Votes are public and can be changed at any time before the poll closes. - The aim of the game is to provoke debate. Post explaining why you voted the way you did, and why others should join you. - Voting closes in seven days. - The one thing you can't do is vote based on anything other than the relevant category.
Not a difficult choice, this: Planckendael is a good enough zoo but, as a large mammals-focused collection, it was always going to struggle if it copped one of the diversity-oriented categories. And small mammals is probably the best of those categories for London to get.
I'm not so sure about that! I don't think any zoo can be dismissed so easily when it has :Wombat , Tasmanian Devil, Koala, Dusky Pademelon, Swamp Wallaby, Short-beaked Echidna, White-nosed Coati. They're not common in Europe , certainly not in the UK! Most of London's small mammals are fairly commonly seen, apart from Narrow-striped Mongoose and it doesn't seem to have that many more really. It's not really clear whether small primates should be counted or not either.
Ah, but now here’s the difference. Almost all of Planckendael’s eggs are in one basket (the Australia section); whilst this is good theme-wise and with regards to rarities, I would argue that London has a far more diverse list of species which, yes may not be as rare as Planckendael’s, but still manage to convey a wide variety of small mammals. Therefore, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will be voting London.
As for small primates - that is up to your discretion. I've previously said that I think it's reasonable, but not to go overboard. I'll try to provide just a little more guidance as it has come up again. Perhaps a useful definition of 'small' as it applies to primates is 'species that might be housed in a typical small mammal house'. Callitrichids are clearly in, as are non-Lemur prosimians. Lemurs and other small neotropical monkeys are grey areas, and I'll continue to leave them up to you. Larger neotropicals such as spider and howler monkeys are out, as are all old world monkeys and apes. Think more about how the species functions as an exhibit, as opposed purely to its body mass.
Ok, so London has Sloth, Armadillo , Aardvark and a Malagasy carnivore which Planckendael dont, but London don't have tree shrews. The rodent collection is comparable, small carnivores Planckendael marginally better, but apart from the Mappins holding 2 commonly seen marsupials London has none, against a very strong collection.
True I’m still open to being convinced, having visited both I can safely say that Planckendael’s is also a strong collection. Just off the bat I would be more inclined to say London.
Response I was expecting ! They are obviously not rarities to you, but most of London's list I can see plenty of other places !
I haven’t even said I would vote for Planckendael either, only that I don't think this is as obvious a choice as CGSWANS suggested
The Australian collection of Planckendael is, of course, fantastic. However, that's not all they have to offer: The Asian greenhouse has tree shrews, Prevost's squirrels, Luzon clouded rats, pygmy slow lorises and black rats. The South American area has two coati species, patagonian maras, agoutis, brazilian guinea pigs and two callithricids, all in excellent outdoor enclosures. The African area has a quite lovely (though perhaps a tad small) enclosure for banded mongoose. The badger and beaver in the European section are species you don't see a lot in zoos either, and both of their exhibits are nice as well (though the animals are not always visible). London has a nice collection, and I do thoroughly enjoy their night house and jungle enclosure, but if I were a small mammal I'd prefer a spacious outdoor exhibit. My vote's with Planckendael.
London should win this, of course, but this is the equivalent of a once-great team, with an aging back four and a dodgy midfielder who hasn’t really quite settled in coming up against a team that is not as well regarded, but which may just snatch it by being well-coached and having a good game plan - Arsenal against Wigan Athletic, possibly. And my vote will go to the Wigan-like zoo here. London’s small mammals don’t strike me as that good, really. The clump of exhibits to the west of the Clore is a joke at the expense of serious zoo-goers (Meerkats, ASCOtters, and, now Gentle Lemurs - an upgrade on the Ring-taileds, I guess). The Fruit Bat viewing is really poor. The mongooses in the lion thing are just wrong. Lemur walk-through: fine, but no more than that. And some stuff in the Children’s Zoo - which is in the Children’s Zoo... Which leaves the Clore. Downstairs: repeat exhibits; bad lighting; barriers preventing access to the viewing windows (possibly the right thing to do from a welfare perspective, but not good for visitors). Upstairs: the remaining old-school exhibits look half-hearted (and in some cases have been given over to cold-blooded beasts, anyway). The jungle bit is quite nice, but it’s essentially a very large Emperor Tamarin and Titi exhibit, in which Tamandua and Sloths are occasionally seen. Oh - minus points for the Casson Pavilion. Horrible!
I thought this was going to be easy, I've been to both zoos and my initial reaction was that London should win but reading through the comments I think I'll have to vote for Planckendael.
I haven't seen anything to convince me to vote for London, personally I haven't considered primates in any other contest for small mammals so won't now, as that has its own category . I don't like to have to say it, but to use another member's assessment of the zoo , I find London's small mammal collection ' unremarkable '. Planckendael has the kind of small mammal collection I wish London could have and should have ! Planckendael no question sadly!
Have visited both collections and evenso a difficult choise. The reason : I visited London in the early 1980-ties and Planckendael just a few years ago. In the ealy 1980-ties London of course had an impresive small-mammal collection but from what I heared the collection has changed a lot ! Therefor my vote goes to Planckendael because esp. the Australian section is very good and also species like clouded rat and badger were highlights for me. Enclosure-wise I also liked Plackendael a few years ago much more then London Zoo at the beginning of the 1980-ties.
I love your soccer metaphors, even if, as a partisan for the original and the best football, I don't even begin to understand the context.
