International Zoo News Vol. 48/8 (No. 313) December 2001




The Zoo the Mouse Built Herman Reichenbach

Using Sand-boxes to Increase the Cristiano Schetini de Azevedo

Foraging Activities of Red-winged and Ângela Bernadete Faggioli

Tinamou at Belo Horizonte Zoo, Brazil

The Okapi Centenary, 1901–2001: A.C. van Bruggen

the History of Okapia johnstoni

(Sclater, 1901) in Captivity

Book Review


International Zoo News

Recent Articles

Index to Contributors, Vol. 48

Index to Books Reviewed, Vol. 48

Subject Index, Vol. 48

* * *


Along with the rest of the zoo community around the world, and in particular in the U.K., I was deeply shocked to learn of the tragic events at Regent's Park on 20 October that resulted in the untimely death of Jim Robson, keeper of elephants for 16 years. If the loss of this individual as a friend, relation or valued member of the zoo's workforce were not disastrous enough in itself, the implications of such an incident are far more wide-reaching in the long term for zoos in general, not just for the Zoological Society of London. This sad accident could not, perhaps, have come at a more sensitive time, particularly as far as London Zoo and its elephants are concerned, and this has been reflected in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Although the instances of fatalities in British zoos as a whole have been rather frequent in recent years, it would appear that London has not seen such an accident since 1879, when a male Asian elephant, Rostom, trampled on the keeper of parrots, Mr Goss. Prior to that event, three other Regent's Park keepers had been killed by zoo inmates. Despite these hard figures, however, such tragic events are in fact surprisingly few when viewed in the context of the long history of exotic animal husbandry in Britain. Yet because of the emotions aroused by such an event and the traumatizing of the immediate public witnesses, it has been easy for the press, urged on by the anti-zoo movement, to push unnecessary and uneducated propaganda onto their British readership.

Predictably, some members of the anti-zoo factions, armed with such an apparently persuasive argument, have been able to sit back smugly on their haunches with an obvious air of `I told you so'. From their point of view, in the middle of a `Make London an Elephant-free Zone' campaign, the October incident couldn't have been timed better and has merely added fuel to the relentless attacks of one particular `animal welfare' foundation.

But how will the Zoological Society of London cope with the incident, and what changes will the repercussions inevitably bring to British zoos? In this world of an increasing awareness and concern for the welfare of animals, not least those in zoos, policies will change, and this event has highlighted the dangers associated with hands-on elephant husbandry, the traditional and arguably the most practical and convenient – in terms of both workability by zoo personnel and the physical and psychological well-being of the animals – of all elephant management systems.

In the U.K., several city zoos remain as traditional as they can be under current zoo legislation. Although a number of institutions have made great steps to modernize their elephant facilities and handling methods, certain of the older collections remain adequate for the purposes they serve. This is not the time to discuss the relative merits or advantages of either husbandry system.

It has been argued by certain parties that British zoos have a poor record of elephant breeding and longevity; but before introducing such arguments, one must first evaluate the purpose that past and present captive elephants have served, and their individual circumstances. Without the relevant facts to hand, the anti-captive-elephant lobby must not pontificate out of context on the U.K.'s, and in particular London Zoo's, elephant situation. The Casson Rhinoceros and Elephant Pavilion of 1962–65 was built for one purpose only, that of housing `ambassadorial' representatives of several pachyderm species, and not as a breeding centre per se for such beasts. With increasing pressure to utilize existing captive elephant stocks in carefully coordinated propagation programmes, it would have been inevitable that many U.K. zoos would have to rethink the direction in which they would proceed with their resident animals. The October incident has brought this decision abruptly to a head, and although it was in the advanced stages of planning, the development of the current London facilities for such a breeding centre has been cut short. Within the close spatial confines of the Regent's Park site, there would have been no choice other than to continue a full-contact management system for the London elephants. With a proven dangerous individual who has now broken the keeper–elephant social hierarchy, the management, in the eyes of many, have made the right decision in choosing to re-house their animals at the Society's altogether more spacious country headquarters at Whipsnade. The decision has been made and there will be no last-minute reversal. Yet despite the loud voice of the anti-zoo groups, there is a surprisingly large faction among the public who do not wish the Regent's Park animals to depart.

With the imminent removal of elephants, there has been a good deal of speculation as to how the zoo will proceed. Whether through pressure from the anti-zoo lobby or through its own volition, Regent's Park must now make an even more concerted effort to present an attraction for the public. Edinburgh and Frankfurt Zoos, to name but two examples, have succeeded in bringing themselves through the immediate post-elephant depression that will face Regent's Park in the near future; it remains to be seen how this highly-regarded institution will deal with a similar scenario.

I am sure I speak for the whole readership of I.Z.N. in expressing my sorrow to think that next time I visit Regent's Park it will have lost a major and irreplaceable part of its character. The place can never be the same again. But although this is a momentously sad occasion, new opportunities will be presented and the zoo will have the chance to prove its innovativeness in continuing its important mission and upholding its world-class status in the fields of conservation, research, education and – perhaps most importantly for the vast majority of its visitors – recreation.

Sam Whitbread

Further reading

Blunt, W. (1976): The Ark in the Park: the Zoo in the Nineteenth Century. Hamish Hamilton, London.

Born Free Foundation (2001): Elephant Free London: Make London an Elephant-free Zone (

Guillery, P. (1993): The Buildings of London Zoo. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, London.

Jenkins, S. (2001): Save the Regent's Park Three. Evening Standard, 1 November 2001 (or

Whitbread, S. (2001): Human deaths in British zoos. Bartlett Society Journal No. 12 (The Bartlett Society, Southampton, U.K.).

* * *



The Walt Disney Company is the world's second largest media and entertainment conglomerate – only AOL Time Warner boast bigger returns. Disney's market capitalization towers at over $50b, revenue last year exceeded $25b and profits $920m. And 2000 was a bad year. Plenty of money to develop a good zoo. But why would a firm best known for films, cartoons and theme parks full of kitsch invest in a wild-animal park? Since distribution of the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, in 1928, the name Disney has been inextricably associated with animals. Founded in 1923 in Los Angeles as an animation studio, Disney set new standards for nature documentaries in their post-war True-Life Adventures series. From Dumbo and Bambi through Old Yeller and Greyfriars Bobby to Dinosaur, animals animated, automated and real have been the stars of Disney's arguably most popular films. Animal robots populated Disneyland, south of Los Angeles, from the very beginning in 1955, and Walt Disney World near Orlando, Florida, from its start in 1971. Walt Disney, who died prematurely at 65 in 1966, had initially contemplated using live animals in Disneyland, especially for the Jungle Cruise and Nature's Wonderland attractions. Real animals, however, although definitely not members of any unions, could hardly be relied on to perform with the necessary consistency and precision. Would a real elephant spray a passing boat with water from his or her trunk at regular intervals from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. – and really leave it to just getting the visitors wet and nothing more? Disney had his doubts.

The Disney Company credits Michael Eisner, Chief Executive Officer since 1984, for coming up with the idea of a live-animal theme park at Walt Disney World Resort. Zoos, of course, rarely make money, at best enough to keep themselves going well without subsidies and donations. Eisner, now 59, was presumably not thinking of a conventional zoo when in 1989 he challenged Disney's two-thousand-strong theme-park design staff in Glendale, California – Walt Disney Imagineering, to use in-house jargon – to come up with a zoo that would pay. An initial, rough concept for a combination of wild-animal park, traditional theme park and an Epcot-style (that is, technology-packed) pavilion was worked out by chief designer Joe Rohde by January 1990. Eisner is said to have come up with the name, Disney's Animal Kingdom, as a pendant to Magic Kingdom, Disney's theme park dominated by a mock Neuschwanstein castle. A 240-hectare (590-acre) site already owned by Disney west of the three theme parks previously built at Walt Disney World was found on land used until then as cattle pasture, a tree nursery and a testing ground for fireworks. Concepts were tossed about contemplating park areas for mythical animals, cryptozoology (for most zoologists the same thing), domestic livestock and thrill rides, but by 1995 a master plan had been adopted that emphasized classical zoo animals and audio-animatronic dinosaurs, with a two-hectare (five-acre) Camp Minnie-Mickey thrown in for those who can't visit Disney for a day without greeting grown men in Mickey Mouse costumes. At a press conference in June publicizing the establishment of Animal Kingdom, Eisner announced a wild-animal park `that is to the traditional zoo as the motion picture was to the stage play . . . We are in a unique position to promote a deeper understanding and love for all animals.' Judson Green, president of Walt Disney Attractions, was more prosaic: `We believe the Animal Kingdom is a great investment, great for Walt Disney World and a great platform for all divisions.' Construction began in August 1995; opening day was on 22 April 1998, nine years after the idea of a new Disney zoo had first been mooted by Eisner.

Although Disney apparently never published what would certainly be interesting statistics, the U.S. media at the time agreed that some $800m had been spent on the project during those two and a half years when the park was initially built. Six million people visited Animal Kingdom during its first nine months. From the start, it proved more attractive than its two principal animal-oriented theme-park competitors, Sea World of Orlando half an hour to the east and Busch Gardens in Tampa an hour (traffic permitting) west of Walt Disney World. In the twelve months of 1998, those two parks attracted `only' 4.9 and 4.2 million visitors respectively. How attendance has developed since then, Disney isn't saying. On the muggy summer weekday my partner and I visited the park this year, it was certainly packed, although whether by 20,000 or only 10,000 I couldn't tell. Closing hour was an early 6 p.m., however, and not the 8 p.m. advertised back in 1998, and the open-air bar closed at 4.30, after which the park emptied rather rapidly (surely only a coincidence). Tourism in Florida, at least to the expensive theme parks, has suffered in the last couple of years, a victim of the high exchange rate for the dollar as well as America's own economic slowdown. The wake of 11 September and the subsequent anthrax scares in Florida have already hurt the state and, presumably, Disney, and will for some time to come. Having said that, however, three years after its inauguration, it's obvious that Judson Green's hopes were fulfilled: Animal Kingdom was certainly a wise investment. Eisner's prognosis, at least as it was expressed with such fulsomeness at the initial press conference, is not nearly as evident. As David Hancocks recently (2001) wrote in a book quite critical of conventional zoos, `Disney's Animal Kingdom is impressive in many ways, but its lack of innovation is disappointing.'

Jeffrey Hyson wrote not long ago (2000) that each new generation of North American zoo authorities have tended to see themselves as pioneers of new standards for keeping wild animals in captivity. Landscape immersion is the Leitmotif for today's zoos. In the 1970s, vast zoological parks requiring transport to get around them were created near San Diego, Minneapolis-St Paul, Miami and Toronto. From the 1950s into the '70s, zoos celebrated sanitary modernism, what one could call bathroom architecture. In the years between the two world wars, Carl Hagenbeck's concept of moated, barless enclosures in a simulated natural setting were all the fashion. A century ago, Europe's big-city zoos with big buildings housing big collections were the role models for those U.S. zoos that could afford big buildings and big collections themselves. Yet, as Hyson points out, the concepts of today's good zoos, including Disney's, were around decades ago. As early as 1931 the Zoological Society of London had inaugurated a vast wild-animal park, Whipsnade, just north of the British capital, noted for huge paddocks, where many if not most visitors take in their cars. By coincidence, it boasts almost exactly the same acreage as Disney's new Animal Kingdom. Today's technology, obviously, permits more freedom of innovation, but landscape immersion was the idea behind Hagenbeck's patent for what he called the zoological panorama back in 1896: visitors would walk through a simulated natural landscape with several different paddocks separated from each other and the public by concealed moats and hedges, offering the visitor various vantages as well as a vista of the whole environment. Indeed, it's remarkable how the concept of Disney's Animal Kingdom resembles Hagenbeck's Tierpark in Hamburg back in 1914. The major elements of both include, or included, a pseudo-African landscape with a small but representative cross-section of the continent's fauna, South Asian `ruins', a prehistoric park with life-sized models of dinosaurs, mock `native villages' with shops and kiosks to vacuum one's pockets, restaurants big and small offering exotic atmosphere and expensive food, thrill rides – oh yes, and some very interesting animals. (I use the past tense `included' as many of Hagenbeck's once prominent attractions, such as the native villages and the two major restaurants, did not survive World War II, and the amusement park not even World War I, whilst the animal collection has become rather ABC since the demise of the international animal trade that once sustained Hagenbeck.) Manchester's Belle Vue Zoological Gardens promoted the concept of zoo cum amusement park for 140 years, but they folded in 1977. Disney's Animal Kingdom, needless to say, was vastly more expensive to build than either; the Hagenbecks have probably never had the equivalent of $800m go through their books in the century and a half they've been in the animal business. It would be absurd to suggest, however, that Disney's Animal Kingdom is little more than a technologically polished version of Hagenbeck's, made fit for the 21st century. It is indeed an impressive zoo with its own unique character, but does it make other good zoos look bad? However much imagination Walt Disney Imagineering showed, they did not re-invent the zoo.

Disney's concern for detail is nevertheless overwhelming. If their propaganda can be believed, 100,000 trees representing 850 species and four million shrubs were raised from seedlings in the park or transplanted there. One thousand eight hundred species of fern, 250 of vine and 300 of grass adorn the grounds. How many visitors can appreciate that, or want to? A three-and-a-half-hectare (eight-acre) nursery provides the animal exhibits almost daily with fresh shrubs and trees that are planted to be eaten. The `plant' that Disney is most proud of, however, is the Tree of Life, a fourteen-storey artificial tree built on oil-rig technology to withstand Florida's notorious hurricanes. Its 45 secondary, 756 tertiary and almost 8,000 end branches have over 100,000 life-like plastic leaves between them, all apparently implanted by hand. Looking closer at the tree, over 320 animals from rhino to squid to bee – to no particular scale, but for the most part big – emerge from the concrete `bark', the work of a dozen sculptors coordinated by the Hungarian artist Zsolt Hormay. Hancocks concedes that the Tree of Life `may be the most fabulous thing Disney has ever made, at least since Fantasia.' It reminded me, oddly enough, of the intricate and delicate work of Chinese craftsmen working at the opposite scale of size, carving giant pandas on the heads of pins and painting the Stone Forest inside tiny bottles. Impressive, yes, certainly elaborate, but is it really art? It's kitsch, but then that's what Disney is all about anyway, isn't it? In the roots of the `tree', a 430-seat cinema has been installed featuring It's Tough to be a Bug. For perhaps a quarter of an hour, with a pair of those same old-fashioned 3-D plastic glasses on my nose that I last wore as a teenager at monster and Russ Meyer movies, a wonderfully amusing show starring the `Termite-ator', Acorn Weevil, a hopping tarantula and hundreds of other arthropods on screen, hanging from the ceiling and simulated in the seats, tells one nothing at all new about insects, but it does perhaps for once serve Eisner's purported purpose of genuinely fostering sympathy for animals that need it.

As a member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and host to last year's AZA conference, Disney does consider its Animal Kingdom to be primarily a zoo. My principal criticism thus concerns the backstage to which the animals themselves have been relegated. In many of the conventional enclosures, for example – and Disney's zoo has many exhibits that, to quote Hancocks again, `are decidedly ordinary, formed with the usual lumpen and illogical masses of incompetent fake rock forms . . . that stumble all over zoos around the world' – the vegetation is so thick that one cannot make out the inhabitants. I was surprised to come across a couple of enclosures that didn't even have a descriptive label, only a pretty outline on a wooden sign of the animal (tapir, thamin) that was supposed to be in there. Of course modern zoos think it important that their charges should be able to hide from view whenever they want to, and there is much to be said for that principle. But as Richard Reynolds (2000) has pointed out in these pages, that's little comfort for today's animal fan `who has just shelled out the thirteen-dollar admission fee [in his case in Atlanta] to see them.'

The admission fee at Disney's Animal Kingdom is (or was this last summer) a whopping $50.88 including sales tax. That's the equivalent of about £35 or ***55. Per person. The same amount will get one a pass for the whole year at most German zoos. The parking fee of $6.00 is more than most European zoos (outside the U.K.) ask for admission, although that's per car at least. Public transport, needless to say, is non-existent, unless one stays at one of Disney's hotels. The one closest to the park, the 1,293-room Animal Kingdom Lodge, has views of a simulated African savannah starting at `only' $200 a night in the off-season. But at least it affords its guests the opportunity to look at the animals in peace. That cannot be said of what is unquestionably Animal Kingdom's highlight, the Kilimanjaro Safari.

Heinz Sielmann, who's been making nature films for over half a century now, and who has been to the Serengeti as often as most of us to our local pub, revealed to German journalists on opening day that he was `deeply, deeply moved' by the sight of Disney's 50-hectare (120-acre) replica of an African savannah. OK, Disney paid his expenses, but Hancocks too thinks that `it is as close to the real savannah as one can experience outside Africa.' Having been to Africa a couple of times myself, I can say that it is indeed as successful an imitation of a savannah landscape as I've ever come across in a zoo. It's difficult to say if it would be obvious that the baobabs are as concrete as the Tree of Life if one didn't know that in advance, but the African vegetation otherwise and the 60 species of big game and African birds are real enough, and the moats separating the enclosures for the most part well concealed. It's a genuinely beautiful sight to see giraffes browsing in apparent freedom, for once with ample space, and the elephant enclosure alone covers two and half hectares (six acres). The problem is, one cannot really enjoy the animals, that is, one cannot observe them. Disney's African savannah has no footpath, one must take the coach. The coach in this case is a roughly 30-seat safari vehicle that whisks one through the savannah in 20 minutes. `See the rhinos? Where? Over there, no . . . Well, they were back there.'

Efforts are made to coax animals to where one can spot them at least: air-conditioned artificial rocks lure lions, for example, out of the shade and near to the road. Unfortunately, those rocks are so high up that again one hardly sees the animals, especially if, instead of standing high and roaring, the lions just lie around – which, sadly, they prefer to do. If the speed with which one is racing through the savannah is annoying enough, another distraction comes from the vehicle's loudspeakers: a feigned conversation between the driver and a bush pilot accompanied by a wildlife biologist (with Oxbridge accent). Towards the end of the tour, the coach picks up speed as we `join' a truly hokey chase to corner `elephant poachers'. Apparently, the route originally featured a life-sized model of a dead elephant, but so many children became disturbed by the sight that Disney pulled that prop. At the end of the ride, the poachers are cornered by a (coincidence?) white game ranger standing next to an aeroplane with the single propeller still rotating. A very pretty, buxom blonde, incidentally; the `poachers' are actually black-painted shop-window dummies, seated with hands up in a small lorry. If one hasn't seen enough – of the animals, I mean – one can go back to the end of the queue at the entrance and take another ride. There's one every three minutes or so, and the crowd control is remarkably efficient. But is that what a good zoo's about, conditioning visitors to just zip past the animals?

Hyson quotes three London zoo-keepers criticizing not specifically Disney but David Hancocks's call for more realistic-looking pseudo-landscapes: `People primarily come to a zoo to see living animals, and not fibre-glass reconstructions of the Earth's habitats.' Considering that Animal Kingdom gets some six million visitors a year, probably more, in a conurbation with only 1.6m population, whereas London Zoo is lucky to get a million in a city with over seven million inhabitants, the people at Disney can be forgiven their smirks. They're obviously doing something right. Yet Hyson's keepers have an important point. Recently I visited Howletts in Kent and was impressed by the length of time visitors spent in front of the gorilla cages, enjoying the big families playing and interacting with each other as well as with the visitors. John Aspinall hated the very word `cage', but to be honest, that's what the exhibits for gorillas at Howletts are. The wire-meshed enclosures are reasonably large, although hardly huge, and the floors are covered with layers of hay and straw instead of grass, rocks and earth. They're full of items to climb and play with that could well have been bought at Woolworth's, certainly not from the zoo-design specialists Jones & Jones, and although simple and presumably inexpensive (Aspinall was never as rich as Disney, after all), they serve their purpose well: keeping the gorillas occupied, apparently happy and certainly healthy, and the visitors enchanted. Adjacent to the African savannah, Animal Kingdom offers a Pangani Forest Exploration Trail, where at least some African animals can be seen at one's own pace. Two troops of gorillas are held there in two large, attractively landscaped habitats, as nice as any I've seen in a zoo. The animals there too were active and, as far as I could tell, healthy and contented. Yet oddly, no other visitor during the time we were in the area joined us to really watch the animals. Again, it may only have been a coincidence, but the many visitors who passed through hardly slowed their pace, let alone made a full stop to have a good look. Perhaps they didn't really come to see the animals, only Disney, but there lies the danger any other zoo would encounter when imitating Animal Kingdom. Drop the `Disney' out of the name, and Animal Kingdom would get far fewer visitors.

The Pangani Forest Exploration Trail – Disney publications insist on pointing out that the name's a registered trademark – is perhaps the nicest genuinely zoo-like section of Disney's Animal Kingdom (which always gets the ® treatment as well, of course). Pangani is the name of a small port, a long river and a short waterfall in north-eastern Tanzania; I wonder if the Tanzanians are still permitted to use the name. Pangani, Florida, is one long, curving weather-proofed concrete path cleverly masquerading as an old and dirty mud trail. The gate is a make-believe research station in the bush, replete with skulls and bones, field glasses, a computer, books and notebooks, a set of the National Geographic, photographs on the wall taken in the field, and an assortment of small animals including the now ubiquitous naked mole-rats. The building's back door is the neatly disguised entrance to a walk-through aviary, giving one the illusion of stepping right into a bird sanctuary. One later comes to an underwater viewing area for hippopotamuses, something still uncommon – because of almost prohibitively expensive construction and maintenance costs – since the first one was opened at Toledo Zoo, Ohio, only a dozen years ago. Okapi, gerenuk and Günther's dik-dik are the largest mammals one otherwise across before reaching `Gorilla Falls'.

Pangani has an Asian pendant in Anandapur, said to be Sanskrit for a `place of all delight'. The Coca-Cola Company will certainly be delighted to know that the entrance area is dominated by stacks of cases of Coke. `Product placement' they call it in the film and television industry, and certainly penetrating here. Amongst the fast-food kitchens and souvenir kiosks one can observe white-cheeked and siamang gibbons. A red brick gatehouse leads to the Maharajah Jungle Trek, simulated Mogul ruins housing Malayan tapir, tiger, thamin (Cervus eldi), blackbuck and Komodo monitor. Built into the `ruins' are also a large aviary for Asian birds and a flight cage for Malayan flying fox and Rodrigues fruit bat, a very nice enclosure from what I could see through the crowds. That was an exhibit where visitors, some with elbows sharpened, at least tried to watch the animals for a while. The planting, although attractive, was authentic neither along the Maharajah nor the Pangani trail: in both areas trees and shrubs from all subtropical regions flower, as well they might in central Florida. Those who need a ride can take a white-water raft past a simulated wasted logging site. The conservation message is clear, although visitors from South or South-east Asia might complain that Washington state or Oregon – or even central Florida – could offer similar opportunities for pillorying deforestation.

DinoLand U.S.A. once harboured American crocodiles (in an enclosure; in the wild, too, at one time), but their habitat has disappeared under a construction site for Primeval Whirl and Triceratop (sic) Spin, a roller-coaster and a hub-and-spoke, spinning ride scheduled for opening in summer of next year. Gone too, apparently, are thick-knees and seriemas, once representing avian `living fossils'. Being a dinosaur enthusiast since childhood, I looked forward to this admittedly not very zoo-like attraction, but, as we've seen, a dinosaur `landscape' has been a feature of at least one zoo for nine decades. (Calgary Zoo, Alberta, also has one, completed in 1937.) The entrance to DinoLand is the walk-under cast of a huge sauropod skeleton. McDonald's bought the privilege of product placement here, and they use it with Flintstones wit. A mock dig, palaeontologically correct, gives children the opportunity to play fossil hunter. The highlight, however, is a thrill ride originally called Countdown to Extinction, CTX, but since renamed simply Dinosaur. The new name may not appear to be very imaginative, but it serves to remind visitors of Disney's recent film Dinosaur – of which one's welcome to buy the video. The make-believe journey through the Cretaceous time-machine suffers a meteorite shower such as helped to wipe out the dinosaurs. Disney surely spent a fortune creating the 19 life-sized dinosaurs and three giant pterosaurs in loud and full-colour audio-animatronic realism, but apparently cut corners buying the vehicles and tracks for the ride itself. I'm always fond of a good, fast roller-coaster (although I admit that's not what one goes to a zoo for), but the three-minute ride in Dinosaur is a primitive shake and stir, spitting at least this passenger out with nausea and neck pains. I saw no one run back to the end of the queue for another ride. And as on the Kilimanjaro Safari, one races past the individual `animals' so quickly that they could not be enjoyed even if one were not fighting motion-sickness.

Conservation and the tragedy of extinction ostensibly serve as a red thread through one's visit to Disney's Animal Kingdom. A dozen animals died or were killed in accidents in the months before opening day, unfortunately, including two crowned cranes run over by the coach during test runs for Kilimanjaro Safari. Animal-protection groups, particularly PETA, thought that fodder for a boycott, but Americans are no more likely to boycott Disney than South Africans are rugby, and nothing more has since been heard of the animal-rights people in Orlando. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture looked into the deaths, but, like others, could only find unfortunate circumstances at fault. What large zoo gets started without a mishap? Disney took pains to acquire as many captive-bred animals as they could, and the large-mammal curator of a zoo in the American Midwest complained to me a couple of years ago that they were driving up the prices even of hippopotamuses. Disney was audacious enough to secure the term `Conservation Station' as a registered trademark too, as if it had invented the concept, but a conservation station here means a petting zoo adjacent to a building with veterinary rooms open to the public through windows and microphones, with a children's exhibit on the rain forest and some small mammals like sloth and golden lion tamarin thrown in. And yet another gift shop. At Animal Kingdom, visitors are encouraged to pay an additional dollar on every souvenir purchase to help finance the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund. Cynics might think that a clever idea to get the public to pay for Disney's tax write-off, but the fund is credited in conservation circles for distributing $3m since its inception in 1995 without much fuss.

The Conservation Station is reached from Harambe – the faux East African market-place devoted to souvenir shops, an expensive albeit self-service restaurant and an open-air bar – by the Wildlife Express, a short, narrow-gauge railway with steam locomotive. The ride there leads one past the night quarters for many of the animals one sees during the day on the Kilimanjaro Safari. It's a bit of a let-down, making the artificiality of the site obvious to all, but it's an amazingly honest revelation. On the walk back from the Conservation Station to the railway station that takes one back to Harambe, one passes a variety of signs exhorting conservation. The most contradictory, I thought, is the one calling on everyone to `reduce trash'. The restaurant in Harambe, the Tusker, may charge $5 for a beer and $8 for a sandwich, but the drinks are all served in throw-away plastic cups, and the plates and cutlery too are cheap, disposable plastic. The same throw-away attitude prevails at all of the Disney eateries we passed by. At Disney's Animal Kingdom, reducing trash is other people's obligation.

What are zoos for? The Paris Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes is an integral part of the national museum of natural history complex. London Zoo advertises itself as `conservation in action'. The venerable New York Zoological Society changed its name years ago to Wildlife Conservation Society, and even New York's Central Park menagerie, America's oldest zoo, now insists on being known as the Central Park Wildlife Center. They are all genuinely zoological gardens. Disney is in it for the money. That in itself is nothing to be ashamed of, least of all in the United States. Hagenbeck, after all, was also in it for the money, as were the Jennisons of Belle Vue, Al Oeming of the Alberta Game Farm and certainly today's Sea World and Sea Life chains. Owners running a zoo (or aquarium) for profit can still have a genuine fondness for and interest in animals. How much profit-making is good for a zoo, however, and more importantly, how much profit is ploughed back into the zoo and how much disappears into other coffers? When the zoo becomes just one of many businesses of a conglomerate, the demands for generating profit can become obscene. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, was paid $73m last year: one million in salary, 11.5m in bonuses and 60.5m in share options cashed. That's three thousand times what an average keeper at Animal Kingdom earns. In 1998, Eisner cashed in stock options alone worth $570m, in 1999 an almost modest $50m. In only three years, Eisner cost the company almost as much as the initial construction of Animal Kingdom! The park is obviously expected to pay its fair share towards Eisner's requirements – and those of his fellow board members, not to mention the shareholders. Disney continues to plough money into Animal Kingdom to keep up the maintenance and build additional attractions. But $50 times six or seven or eight million annual visitors year in and year out bring in a tidy sum as well. Not to mention the revenue generated by the overpriced shops, kiosks and restaurants, and even the car park. Judson Green was right on the mark when he anticipated at that June 1995 press conference that the park would become `a great investment'. But who was Eisner kidding when he said at the same venue that Animal Kingdom was `based on mankind's enduring love for animals and celebrating all animals that ever . . . existed.' How many Americans can afford to pay $50 to visit a zoo and celebrate those animals, no matter how good the park may be? How many Britons £35, how many Germans or French or Italians ***55 – children only marginally less? Per person? Of course, many can; the crowds at Disney are proof enough. Americans, however, of the class that actually do the hard work on the grounds at places like Disney – and they still constitute the majority – would themselves be hard up to pay for a day at Animal Kingdom. All the more so if they had a family to take with them.

Walt Disney himself is often quoted with the reminder that it `all started with a mouse.' In German we have the expression Mäuse machen – `making mice'. That means making money. If a zoo has the Disney trademark, it will. But is Animal Kingdom a model for zoos in general? I like to think that zoos are about more than making money, even if more and more have to fend for themselves with fewer and fewer subsidies. They have a social responsibility towards both animals and the people in whose hands nature's fate lies. They should certainly promote `mankind's enduring love for animals'. But that is still best done where animals can be observed, where one can watch them behave in as natural a manner as zoos can make possible. And where most will be able to afford the admission and extras. A quick ride, a three-dimensional film can be fun. But although the animals at Animal Kingdom may have as much freedom to behave naturally as in the best of zoos, the opportunity is lost on its visitors. Disney has degraded its animals to supernumeraries. But it's `making mice'.

References and sources

Albright, M. (2000): Disney plans new attractions. St Petersburg Times (Florida), 30 September, p. 1E.

Churchill, D. (1998): Beware, it's a jungle out there. The Times (London), Travel section, p. 3.

Crystal, G. (2001): Die Gewinne mit der Maus. Financial Times Deutschland (Hamburg), 29 January, p. 34.

Fabrikant, G., and Schiesel, S. (2001): Suddenly, the magic is in short supply. The New York Times, 23 September, p. D1.

Flynn, K. (2001): It's a small jungle, after all. The New York Times, 10 June, p. E10.

Freydag, N. (1998): Auf keimfreier Savanne. Die Woche (Hamburg), 8 May, p. 41.

Geus, T. (1998): Von echten Löwen und künstlichen Dinosauriern. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29 April, p. R1.

Gumbel, A. (2000): The not-so-wonderful world of Disney. The Independent (London), 26 January, Business supplement, p. 3.

Hancocks, D. (2001): A Different Nature – the Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hartung, T. (1999): Grosse Themenparks leiden unter Besucherschwund. Fremdenverkehrswirtschaft, 14 May, p. 20.

Hyson, J. (2000): Jungles of Eden – the design of American zoos. In Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture (ed. M. Conan), pp. 23–44. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Malmberg, M. (1997): A Sneak Preview – Disney's Animal Kingdom. Hyperion, New York.

Malmberg, M. (1998): The Making of Disney's Animal Kingdom Theme Park. Hyperion, New York.

Navarro, M. (1998): New Disney kingdom comes with real-life obstacles. The New York Times, 16 April, p. A14.

Niederberghaus, T. (1998): Das amerikanische Afrika. Die Zeit (Hamburg), 14 May, p. 55.

Nordheimer, J. (1998): Disney goes live with its newest park. The New York Times, 26 April, Sect. 5, p. 8.

Reynolds, R.J. (2000): Guest editorial. International Zoo News 47 (5): 276–282.

Spritzer, L., and Mola, D. (2000): Field Guide to Disney's Animal Kingdom Theme Park. Disney Editions, New York.

Verrier, R. (2000): Animal Kingdom rolls with changes. The Orlando Sentinel, 28 August, Visitor Guide section, p. 1.

Zwanzger, P. (1998–1999): Disney's Animal Kingdom. Arbeitsplatz Zoo, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 41–46; Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 16–21.

Herman Reichenbach, Paul-Sorge-Strasse 74, 22459 Hamburg, Germany. (E-mail:

* * *




The red-winged tinamou (Rhynchotus rufescens, Temminck, 1815) is an omnivorous bird, originally with a wide distribution in Brazil (Sick, 1997). Nowadays, it is considered `threatened' because of habitat destruction and hunting (Netto, 1988). In nature, it spends more than 60% of its time foraging, rooting through the soil and using its beak to turn over stones and leaves. It also digs into the soil, throwing it aside, searching for and pulling out tubers and roots (Weeks, 1973).

Environmental enrichment is often employed by animal caretakers to alleviate the incidence of abnormal behaviours and to increase the attractiveness and educational value of exhibits for the public (Shepherdson et al., 1999). Yet, environmental enrichment is seldom practised with avian species, despite the manifestation of abnormal behaviours in some captive birds (King, 1993).

Naturalistic animal exhibits are popular with zoos around the world because of the enhanced educational opportunities they provide in comparison with other types of zoo exhibits (Murray et al., 1998). An important and often expensive part of a naturalistic exhibit is the use of plants and natural substrates to set the scene, and to provide a source of enrichment for the animals. However, in many zoos the animals within naturalistic enclosures quickly destroy the plants and their substrates by feeding on and around them, leading to the zoos protecting the plants with electric fencing (Embury, 1997). Protecting substrates such as the soil is more difficult. Also, protecting plants with electric fencing may prove frustrating for the animals within an enclosure, and frustration is known to induce abnormal behaviour such as stereotypies (Mason, 1991). In large enclosures it is possible to protect only some of the plants with electric fences, giving the animals some access to the plants (Embury, 1997); however, in small enclosures this may not be possible. It may, however, be possible in small enclosures to provide foraging activities that substitute for foraging on plants and in the substrate.

In zoos, food is traditionally provided in bowls at the same time every day. It has been demonstrated that this practice contributes to development of stereotyped behaviours in some species (Lyons et al., 1997; Mason, 1991). A simple way to solve this problem and enrich the animals' lives is to feed them at random time intervals (Veado and Leite, 1999) and make them spend time searching for the food (by hiding it or placing it at different locations every day). The goal of the present study was to enrich the captive environment of the red-winged tinamous by increasing their foraging opportunities, and hopefully to reduce abnormal behaviour and enclosure degradation.

Materials and methods

(1) Subjects, housing and maintenance

Two groups of red-winged tinamous housed at Belo Horizonte Zoo in different enclosures were studied. One of these groups is on display in the birds' area, in a 3 ΄ 6 ΄ 3 m enclosure, and comprises four (3.1) individuals, all aged between three and four years. The second group is kept off-exhibit in a 10 ΄ 5 ΄ 2.3 m enclosure, comprising seven (5.2) individuals, all aged between seven and eight months. They were usually fed with bird ration, dog ration and corn (about 500 g) supplied once a day in a plastic bowl placed on the ground.

(2) Enrichment device

The enrichment consisted of wooden boxes, one metre square and 0.15 m deep, filled with sand (see photo, below). Eight boxes were used, four with each group of birds. A mixture of dog ration, bird ration and corn (125 g in each box) was mixed into the sand until completely buried.

(3) Experimental protocol

The study was divided into four sequential periods: (1) baseline – observations made of the tinamous before enrichment (24 hours); (2) training – no observation made, birds allowed one week to learn how to use the device; (3) enrichment – birds observed when given the sand-boxes (24 hours); (4) post-enrichment – observations made when conditions were returned to those during the baseline period (24 hours).

Table 1. Ethogram of the behaviours observed in Rhynchotus rufescens in Fundação Zoo-Botânica de Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Behaviour Abbreviation Description

Piercing the ground PG Digging a hole, throwing the soil outwards

with the beak with the beak

Pecking at the ground PP Pecking at the ground as if scratching,

but not piercing the ground

Pecking at walls PW Pecking at walls

Pecking at the plants PPE Pecking at the stalks or leaves of plants

in the enclosure

Eating EA Eating the food in the tray or sand-boxes

Drinking DR Drinking

Jumping JU Leaping as though trying to fly and then

landing again; the bird runs to one side

on landing

Pecking another individual PA Pecking any part of another individual's body

Pacing PC Walking to one side and another or in

circles, repetitively

Active AC Walking, copulating, preening, stretching,

nesting, bathing and vocalising

Inactive IN Still, looking round and resting

Not visible NV Not visible

(4) Data recording

The observations were made three times a week (on Monday, Wednesday and Friday), from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in the birds' area, and from 11.15 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. at the off-exhibit site, during August and September 2000 (baseline), October to December 2000 (enrichment), and December 2000 to January 2001 (post-enrichment).

Data were collected using scan sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1993). Recording intervals were of one minute, for one-hour observation periods, each day. The behavioural categories sampled are described in Table 1.

(5) Statistical analysis

The mean number of scans of each behaviour per hour was calculated for the two tinamou groups. Significant differences between the three observation periods were analysed using Friedman's ANOVA test and Kendall Concordance Coefficient. Overall significant differences detected by Friedman's test were then analysed post-hoc using the Tukey test to determine which specific periods differed significantly (Zar, 1984).


The PC behaviour was considered a stereotypy, while behaviours like PG, PP, PW and PPE were taken as undesirable, despite normally happening in nature. The destruction of the enclosure caused by such behaviours was the main reason for such classification. The mean number of behaviours of tinamous in both groups is given in Tables 2 and 3.

A significant difference was found between the observation periods in the number of scans for the behavioural category PG. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the birds spent more time piercing the ground during the baseline (birds' area = 4.08, P < 0.05; off-exhibit area = 6.43, P < 0.05; see Tables 2 and 3) and post-enrichment periods (birds' area = 4.80, P < 0.05; off-exhibit area = 5.21, P < 0.05; see Tables 2 and 3).

A significant difference was also found between the observation periods in the number of scans of the PP behaviour in both groups. Post-hoc analysis showed that the tinamous had displayed this behaviour for longer periods of time during the baseline (birds' area = 3.47, P < 0.05; off-exhibit area = 3.47, P < 0.05; see Tables 2 and 3) and post-enrichment periods (birds' area = 3.27, P < 0.05; off-exhibit = 4.50, P < 0.05; see Tables 2 and 3).

Feeding activity increased significantly in both groups during the enrichment period (birds' area = 0.82, P < 0.05; off-exhibit area = 1.22, P < 0.05; see Tables 2 and 3). A significant difference was also detected in the observation periods of the scans in the PC behaviour for the tinamous from the birds' area. Post-hoc analysis showed that they displayed such behaviour most in the baseline period when compared to the other treatment periods (birds' area = 4.50, P < 0.05; see Table 2). There was no significant difference between the periods for the group of tinamous at the off-exhibit area (see Table 3).

Table 2. Mean number of behavioural observations for the red-winged tinamou in the birds‘ area by treatment period (± standard error; α = 0.05).

Behaviour TREATMENT PERIOD χ2 n = 24, df = 2 P value

Baseline Enrichment Post-enrichment

Not visible (NV) 2.48 ± 0.68 0.45 ± 0.24 1.11 ± 0.33 12.49 0.002*

Active (AC) 47.17 ± 2.93 53.45 ± 1.74 58.26 ± 1.91 8.86 0.011*

Inactive (IN) 27.50 ± 3.23 25.23 ± 1.66 24.27 ± 2.12 0.40 0.818

Piercing the ground (PG) 2.29 ± 0.34 0.78 ± 0.18 2.97 ± 0.52 13.98 0.001*

Pecking the ground (PP) 4.53 ± 0.58 2.36 ± 0.28 4.28 ± 0.49 7.75 0.021*

Eating (EA) 1.51 ± 0.39 11.28 ± 1.58 1.12 ± 0.16 37.91 0.001*

Drinking (DR) 0.76 ± 0.14 0.64 ± 0.09 0.71 ± 0.10 0.68 0.713

Pecking another individual (PA) 1.20 ± 0.28 0.68 ± 0.20 0.47 ± 0.14 7.61 0.022*

Jumping (JU) 0.43 ± 0.14 0.14 ± 0.06 0.03 ± 0.02 8.45 0.015*

Pecking at walls (PW) 0.26 ± 0.07 0.35 ± 0.10 0.57 ± 0.19 0.54 0.762

Pacing (PC) 11.81 ± 2.15 3.63 ± 0.80 6.00 ± 1.32 10.30 0.006*

Pecking at the plants (PPE) 0.09 ± 0.04 0.07 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.05 3.80 0.150

* Indicates behaviours significantly affected by treatments.


Table 3. Mean number of behavioural observations for the red-winged tinamou in the off-exhibit area by treatment period (± standard error; α = 0.05).

Behaviour TREATMENT PERIOD χ2 n = 24, df = 2 P value

Baseline Enrichment Post-enrichment

Not visible (NV) 16.63 ± 1.33 11.67 ± 1.73 9.94 ± 0.82 6.59 0.037*

Active (AC) 27.30 ± 2.00 41.91 ± 1.75 51.49 ± 1.65 30.08 0.001*

Inactive (IN) 41.13 ± 1.90 31.27 ± 1.68 27.02 ± 1.55 19.00 0.001*

Piercing the ground (PG) 3.61 ± 0.83 0.42 ± 0.10 1.91 ± 0.33 24.33 0.001*

Pecking the ground (PP) 6.68 ± 0.68 4.10 ± 0.39 5.90 ± 0.61 11.32 0.003*

Eating (EA) 3.24 ± 0.48 9.35 ± 1.10 2.07 ± 0.33 21.00 0.001*

Drinking (DR) 0.56 ± 0.14 0.83 ± 0.14 0.98 ± 0.14 7.93 0.019*

Pecking another individual (PA) 0.09 ± 0.06 0.30 ± 0.08 0.22 ± 0.11 8.51 0.014*

Jumping (JU) 0.01 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.09 1.60 0.450

Pecking at walls (PW) 0.53 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.03 0.17 ± 0.09 16.91 0.001*

Pacing (PC) 0.14 ± 0.10 0.02 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.09 1.20 0.549

Pecking at the plants (PPE) 0.09 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.02 0.09 ± 0.09 5.76 0.056

* Indicates behaviours significantly affected by treatments.


The enrichment device provided extra foraging opportunities for the birds in a manner suitable for the species (i.e. species-specific). The observations showed that the tinamous of both groups quickly adapted to using the sand-boxes, spending large periods of time foraging in them. Thus, undesirable behaviours (PG and PP) underwent a significant reduction, and this helped to maintain the aesthetics, in terms of plants and substrates, of the enclosures for the visitors.

The sand-boxes proved efficient in reducing the stereotyped behaviour PC of the group in the birds' area. In the off-exhibit area, however, these boxes did not reduce stereotypic behaviour, perhaps because the area available for exploratory activity (patrolling) was large, although some studies have found that increasing cage size fails to result in any measurable changes in behaviour (Crockett et al., 1993; Crockett, 1998, Goosen, 1988). According to Kreger et al. (1998), the enclosures for captive-born animals do not need to offer as much environmental stimulation as enclosures for wild-born animals do; because wild-born animals once lived in environments that were temporally, physically, and socially complex, they may experience relatively more psychological stress when confined in restricted, less complex, and unfamiliar captive environments. This also could explain the present result, because the tinamous in the off-exhibit area were captive-born, while those in the birds' area were wild-born.

Pecking at the plants in the enclosures (PPE) did not show any significant modification with enrichment, although the least observed frequency occurred during the enrichment period in both areas. This suggests that, through the use of sand-boxes, ornamental plants should survive in the enclosures. However, in the future a study should be carried out to confirm or reject this hypothesis.

These devices have proved quite successful in reducing stereotyped and undesirable behaviours of red-winged tinamous in captivity. The sand-boxes also made the birds more active. It is known that when animals are active this increases the time the public spend watching them (Shepherdson et al., 1993). This type of enrichment could also be used for other species of the Tinamidae and Galliforms which show similar foraging behaviours.


We would like to thank Carlyle Mendes Coelho, the Zoo Director. We thank all the bird section, especially Joâo Bôsco Ferraz, for their assistance. Thanks also to Bernadete Ventura Veado for her invaluable suggestions, to Cláudio and Adriano for the advice on statistics, and to all those who contributed to the making of this project. Our special thanks to Dr Robert Young (De Montfort University, U.K.) for his contribution in revising our work and giving valuable suggestions for this article.


Crockett, C.M. (1998): Psychological well-being of captive nonhuman primates. In Second Nature – Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals (eds. D.J. Shepherdson, J.D. Mellen and M. Hutchins), pp. 129–152. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Crockett, C.M., Bowers, C.L., Sackett, G.P., and Bowden, D.M. (1993): Urinary cortisol responses of longtailed macaques to five cage sizes, tethering, sedation, and room change. American Journal of Primatology 30: 55–74.

Embury, A.S. (1997): Planting for environmental enrichment at Melbourne Zoo. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Environmental Enrichment. 21–25 August 1995, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 290–298. Copenhagen Zoo, Denmark.

Goosen, C. (1988): Developing housing facilities for rhesus monkeys: prevention of abnormal behavior. In New Developments in Biosciences: Their Implications for Laboratory Animal Science (eds. A.C. Beyen and H.A. Solleveld), pp. 67–70. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

King, C.E. (1993): Environmental enrichment: is it for the birds? Zoo Biology 12 (6): 509–512.

Kreger, M.D., Hutchins, M., and Fascione, N. (1998): Context, ethics, and environmental enrichment in zoos and aquariums. In Second Nature – Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals (eds. D.J. Shepherdson, J.D. Mellen and M. Hutchins), pp. 59–82. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Lyons, J., Young, R.J., and Deag, J.M. (1997): The effects of physical characteristics of the environment and feeding regime in the behaviour of captive felids. Zoo Biology 16 (1): 71–83.

Martin, P., and Bateson, P. (1993): Measuring Behaviour (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press, U.K.

Mason, G. (1991): Stereotypies: a Critical Review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037.

Murray, A., Waran, N.K., and Young, R.J. (1998): Environmentally enriched enclosures – their visual impact and educational message? Ratel 25 (3): 101–103.

Netto, F. (1988): Criação Animal. Editora Abril, São Paulo, Brazil.

Shepherdson, D.J., Carlstead, K., Mellen, J.D., and Seidensticker, J. 1993. The influence of food presentation on the behavior of small cats in confined environments. Zoo Biology 12 (2): 203–216.

Shepherdson, D.J., Mellen, J.D., and Hutchinson, M. (eds.) (1999): Second Nature – Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Sick, H. (1997): Ornitologia Brasileira. Editora Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Veado, B.V., and Leite, M.T.V. (1999): Comportamento e Bem-estar de Animais em Cativeiro. Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Weeks, S.E. (1973): The behaviour of the red-winged tinamou, Rhynchotus rufescens. Zoologica 58 (1): 13–40.

Zar, J.H. (1984): Biostatistical Analysis (2nd edition). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Cristiano Schetini de Azevedo and Ângela Bernadete Faggioli, Fundação Zoo-Botânica de Belo Horizonte, Av. Otacílio Negrão de Lima, 8000 Pampulha, CEP 31365–450, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. (E-mail:

* * *

THE OKAPI CENTENARY, 1901–2001: THE HISTORY OF Okapia johnstoni (Sclater, 1901) IN CAPTIVITY


This year it is exactly a century ago that the okapi was officially discovered and named. At that time the appearance, seemingly out of nowhere, of this large, strikingly beautiful and completely novel African mammal generated a lot of attention from the press (the only `media' then). It is perhaps opportune to concisely repeat the original story of the circumstances that led to this major discovery, which was, indeed, more or less a coincidence. (Incidentally, only three more large land mammals (> 100 kg) have been discovered since the okapi became known, i.e. the giant forest hog (Hylochoerus meinertzhageni, 1904), an antelope, the mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni, 1910), both in Africa, and a wild ox, the kouprey (Bos sauveli, 1937), in Southeast Asia. The captive history of all three is short and limited – these animals have not become established in zoological gardens. For the latter two captive breeding will sooner rather than later become a dire necessity.)

Around the turn of the last century (1899–1900) Sir Harry Johnston2, a Victorian naturalist of note, was charged by the British government with the task of returning a group of pygmies to the Congo forest. These pygmies had been illegally `contracted' by a German entrepreneur for exhibition in Europe. (Johnston was a gifted but much undervalued explorer who contributed immensely to the geography, ethnography, comparative linguistics, zoology, botany, etc., of various parts of tropical Africa. A tablet in the church in Poling, West Sussex, where he is buried in the churchyard, summarizes his career as follows: `Administrator, soldier, explorer, naturalist, author and painter.') Talking to various local people, native and expatriate, Johnston had discussed Stanley's rumour of a large unknown forest ungulate. Acting on their information, Johnston searched for a donkey-like animal, and therefore thought that his pygmy guides were misleading him by showing him the tracks of a cloven-hoofed animal. This is also the reason that all the material he obtained, a few strips of skin, were originally attributed to a new zebra and described early in 1901 by P.L. Sclater, secretary of the Zoological Society of London (which position included the running of the Regent's Park zoo), as Equus johnstoni. Later, when skeleton material and a complete skin became available, this was shown to be mistaken – Johnston himself intimated that the skull exhibited a close relationship to fossil and Recent giraffes. In the summer of 1901, the genus Okapia was proposed for `Johnston's zebra' by E.R. Lankester, director of the British Museum (Natural History), London. Initially there were two uncertainties – it was as yet unknown whether the horns of this forest giraffe were restricted to the one sex or not, and, secondly, how many species there were. It appears that there is in fact only one species of okapi, subject to some variation in pattern. This is well shown, for example, in the series of photographs of all specimens kept at Antwerp Zoo in the years 1919–1970 (Gijzen and Smet, 1974). However, there is an unresolved controversy as regards the origin of the okapi: is it a primitive forest dweller or is it a more advanced, i.e. secondary, forest inhabitant? Thenius (1992) fairly recently forcefully argued the latter.

Soon there was a race on to try to import okapis for the zoological gardens of Europe. Since the animal is endemic to the Congo, at that time a Belgian colony, the Belgians had the monopoly and Antwerp Zoo was the first to exhibit a live specimen (see Table 1). However, they generously did not keep things to themselves, and odd specimens started to appear in western and central Europe, and later also in the U.S.A. (and elsewhere: see photo, p. 506), not infrequently in the form of royal gifts. Zoo authorities were in for a bad shock: keeping okapis alive, let alone breeding them, proved more difficult than expected – indeed, the okapi appeared to be far from a run-of-the-mill ungulate.

The original problems of okapis in captivity may be summarized as endoparasitism and, to a lesser degree, inappropriate diet. The okapi, being a forest browser, or to be exact, a folivore (Hart and Hart, 1989), is very particular about its food in captivity – the species' natural menu encompasses more than 200 species of plants, of which only about 30 are eaten regularly. Most zoological gardens nowadays feed a mixture of fresh or deep-frozen branches, fresh fruit and vegetables, and specially prepared pellets with a high content of crude protein and fibre.

Thanks to a plethora of new anthelmintic drugs, modern veterinary science has largely overcome the endoparasitic problems which initially rapidly killed newly-imported specimens. For example, the first Basel okapi, referred to below, lived for only 66 days in this Swiss zoological garden. Many animals did not even survive in the Congo holding facilities. Of the first one hundred okapis in captivity (1919–1956), at least 13 died directly from the ravages of endoparasitic worms, but most other causes of death noted may well be connected to these parasites. Of course, it is highly important for specimens directly imported from Africa to have been checked and treated for parasites before being transported. But the main improvement here has been the extensive use of the aeroplane. During protracted sea voyages in cramped quarters, frequently with unsuitable food, the animals, even if reasonably free from parasites, easily became re-infected. Indeed, it is surprising that some of the okapis imported by sea in the period from 1928 until the middle 1950s not only survived but even established early longevity records (see Table 1). Is the okapi after all not such a fragile animal, or were these simply comparatively tough specimens with minimum parasite loads?

The first specimen at Basel Zoo (no. 43 in the studbook), a male, unfortunately parasite-ridden and consequently short-lived, is probably one of the best evaluated specimens in the short history of the species. A special issue of the Swiss scientific journal Acta Tropica (Hediger, 1950) contains eleven papers of which six refer to this particular specimen (e.g. clinical observations, anatomy/pathology, the eye, parasitic nematode studies) and five are of a more general character.

There are only two fairly comprehensive treatises in book form on the okapi, viz. Gijzen (1959) and Lindsey et al., (1999). The former, unfortunately in German, is a scholarly overview of all the then available knowledge on the okapi in the thorough European continental style. It was written in Dutch by Agatha Gijzen, an originally Dutch zoologist employed by Antwerp Zoological Gardens. Her manuscript was translated into German by the formidable Erna Mohr, a mammal specialist of note. The book was published in an East German series, the Neue Brehm-Bücherei (`new Brehm library'). The other book, 40 years later, is the product of three American ladies, who have summarized the sum total of all recent knowledge in an easily digestible format.

A comparison of the two titles shows a world of difference. On the one hand a dull, but comprehensive, treatise in the typical behind-the-Iron-Curtain fashion of the late fifties (poor cover, cheap paper, small letter type, etc.), on the other an attractive, well-produced, American paperback with an immediate appeal to any reader faintly interested in the subject. Of course, presentation is not everything, it is the contents that count. Gijzen's work strives to be comprehensive and is illustrated by numerous photos, drawings, graphs, etc. Her book contains a full list of all specimens in captivity (1919–1959, 137 in all) and their subsequent history, and also includes a bibliography of 156 items. The American counterpart is much less rigorously organized: many of its illustrations (drawings only, no photos, graphs, tables, etc.) are decidedly whimsical, and its list of references, four decades on, contains only 107 titles (of which only one – Gijzen's – is not in English). In 1959, our knowledge of the okapi in its environment was practically nil, consisting merely of anecdotal evidence, while in 1999 the authors could fall back on an already fairly considerable literature on free-ranging okapis, as well as many more titles on captive observations.

The present author has personally known Dr Gijzen (van Bruggen, 1996) and is of the opinion that her painstaking scientific work should be recognized as the first compilation of facts on the okapi. She supplied the basis on which we all had to build (Table 2). Incidentally, is it a coincidence that the two books on the okapi were both composed by lady scientists? Apart from these two titles, there have been only two major treatises quite early in the history of the okapi (Fraipont, 1907; Lankester, 1910). These are classical, beautifully illustrated, volumes reflecting the heyday of comparative morphology in the form of studies on the skin and skeleton – few other data were available yet. Both tomes now fetch high prices in the antiquarian book market.

How far have we come in a hundred years? We have accumulated a lot of knowledge in the fields of taxonomy, distribution, anatomy, physiology, behaviour, captive breeding, etc. This knowledge only really took off after the Second World War, in the wake of developments in veterinary science and modern views on animal husbandry in zoological gardens. A modest beginning has been made with field studies in the wild. There are still enormous gaps in our knowledge, and in my opinion too much material is still wasted. How many okapis in zoological gardens are not evaluated scientifically from day to day? How many specimens are simply incinerated after their death? We have two fairly stable and scientifically managed populations of rather limited size (a total of less than 130 individuals) in Europe (48) and the U.S.A. (77), which are more or less self-sustaining. (The exact figures as per 1 January 2001 are the following (fide Ms S. de Vries and W. Schaftenaar, Rotterdam Zoo): Europe, 24.24; America, 40.37; Asia, 1.1; there may be odd unrecorded specimens elsewhere, e.g. Japan.) Little new genetic material in the form of newly-imported specimens has been obtained in the last few decades, and exchange between these two metapopulations is thus far also somewhat limited. There is no question of a spectacular increase in captive-bred specimens, and far too many animals die before becoming part of the breeding pool. The number of founders has been limited (almost all have come from the same fairly small area) and new blood is desperately needed. Ongoing field work should supply the answers to many questions, and conservation issues should be addressed urgently. Would ecotourism in the Congo be a viable option? Most really successful ecotourism schemes have so far been established in comparatively open environments such as the savanna biome in eastern and southern Africa. On the other hand, rain forest ecotourism has taken off – in a very modest way – in Central America. Another factor is law and order – the tourist's first concern is to travel in safety and comfort. Unfortunately the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaïre) has not been a happy one over recent decades, so the outlook for ecotourism is as yet bleak, to say the least.

Has not the time come for a new monograph on the okapi (this time in English)? Our present knowledge has now so diversified that this should be a joint effort – a number of authors together under the editorship of a senior researcher should be able to bring together all available data in a single volume. A scholarly publisher would probably be all too happy to underwrite and distribute such a treatise. . .

Acknowledgements are due to various colleagues who have contributed data or scrutinized the manuscript.


Fraipont, J. (1907): Contributions à la faune du Congo. Tome 1. Okapia. Annales du Musée du Congo, Zoologie – Série II: 1–118, 30 plates.

Gijzen, A. (1959): Das Okapi Okapia johnstoni (Sclater). Die Neue Brehm-Bücherei, A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 120 pp. [contains studbook 1919–1959, i.e. nos. 1–137].

Gijzen, A., and Smet, S. (1974): Seventy years okapi Okapia johnstoni (Sclater, 1901). Acta Zoologica et Pathologica Antverpiensia 59: 1–90.

Hart, J.A., and Hart, T.B. (1989): Ranging and feeding behaviour of okapi (Okapia johnstoni) in the Ituri Forest of Zaire: food limitation in a rain-forest herbivore? In The Biology of Large African Mammals in their Environment (eds. P.A. Jewell and G.M.O. Maloiy), pp. 31–50. Zoological Society of London Symposia No. 61, Oxford University Press, U.K.

Hediger, H. (ed.) (1950): Acta Tropica (Basel) 7 (2), 97–192. [Special issue on the first okapi in Basel Zoo, 11 papers, 10 in German, 1 in French.]

Jones, M.L. (1982): Longevity of captive mammals. Der Zoologische Garten 52: 113–128.

Kruyfhooft, C. (1977): Studbook of the okapi. Report 1976. Acta Zoologica et Pathologica Antverpiensia 68: 41–47.

Lankester, E.R. (1910): Monograph of the Okapi. Atlas. British Museum (Natural history), London. 8 pp. + 48 plates [the accompanying text volume was never published].

Lindsey, S.L., Green, M.N., and Bennett, C.L. (1999): The Okapi: Mysterious Animal of the Congo-Zaïre. University of Texas Press, Austin. [xiv + 131 pp.]

Thenius, E. (1992): Das Okapi (Mammalia Artiodactyla) von Zaire – `lebendes Fossil' oder sekundärer Urwaldbewohner? Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 30: 163–179.

van Bruggen, A.C. (1996): In memoriam Dr Agatha Gijzen (1904–1995), eminent museum historian and zoo biologist. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden 70: 235–247.

Dr A.C. van Bruggen, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (

Table 1. Key events in the captive history of the okapi. The numbers shown are international studbook numbers.

First rumours in the Western world – 1882–1890

Scientific discovery – 1899

Scientific description – 1901

First specimen killed by European – 1902

First coloured plate – 1902

First live captured specimen – 1903

First photograph of live animal – 1907

First live specimen in Europe – 1919 (Antwerp, no. 1)

First live specimen in the U.K. – 1935 (London, no. 5)

First live specimen in the U.S.A. – 1937 (New York, no. 10)

First specimen transported by plane – 1948 (Copenhagen, no. 32)

First longevity records – 1928–1943 (Antwerp, no. 3, >15 years)

– 1937–1952 (New York, no. 10, >15 years)

– 1937–1950 (London, no. 9, 12½ years)

First pair in captivity in Europe – 1932 (Antwerp, nos. 3 and 5)

First birth in captivity in Europe – 1954 (Antwerp, no. 65)

First birth in captivity in U.K. – 1963 (Bristol, no.183)

First surviving calf born in captivity in Europe – 1957 (Paris-Vincennes, no. 123; this animal set a record by living until 1979, i.e. 22 years)

First birth in captivity in the U.S.A. – 1959 (Chicago-Brookfield, no. 140)

First sustained breeding in captivity – from 1957 (Paris-Vincennes)

Longevity record – 1948–1976 (no. 35, 28 years as an adult at Paris–Vincennes, estimated age at death 33 years, fide Kruyfhooft, 1977, and Jones, 1982)

Table 2. People who contributed to the (initial) accumulation of knowledge of the okapi. [The nationality of the various people has been indicated by the official abbreviations in capitals. Gijzen was born in the Netherlands, but worked at Antwerp Zoo from 1948 until her retirement, which she also spent in Belgium; it is unknown whether she acquired Belgian citizenship. This table is partly data-deficient as regards some details, as it was impossible to obtain, e.g., dates of birth/death of various persons involved.]

Sir Henry Morton Stanley (1841–1904: GB) (rumours passed on to Johnston)

Lieutenant Meura (B) (supplied the type specimens, i.e. the bandoliers, to Johnston)

Lieutenant Karl Erikson (S) (supplied skin and skull to Johnston)

Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston (1858–1927: GB) (official discoverer)

Dr Philip Lutley Sclater (1829–1913: GB) (scientific author, described species as Equus johnstoni)

Sir Edwin Ray Lankester (1847–1929: GB) (described genus Okapia; second monograph, 1910)

Dr Jules Fraipont (B) (first monograph, 1907)

Brother Joseph Hutsebaut (B) (first okapi husbandry in Congo, 1927–1941)

Prof. Dr Agatha Gijzen (1904–1995: NL) (first scientist to methodically study live specimens, first comprehensive monograph)

Jean de Medina (died 1971: B) (supervised first sustained capture for export in the period 1948–1960 and, with interruptions, until his death)

Dr J.A. Hart and Dr Terese B. Hart (both USA) (first sustained field research in Congo from 1980)

* * *


ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE WORLD'S ZOOS edited by Catharine E. Bell. Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001. Three vols, xxix + 1577 pp., hardback. ISBN 1–57958–174–9. £190.00 or $325.00.

The Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos is quite possibly the most frustrating book in the history of zoological garden literature. Prior to its publication the rumour mill suggested that it might be an unmitigated disaster. A disaster it is not, but it could so very easily have been so much better – hence the frustration brought about by reading it. It is peppered with mistakes, and some of its entries are to say the very least puzzling. An encyclopedia needs to be authoritative and trustworthy; this encyclopedia is neither of those things, and thus must go down as something of a missed opportunity.

The Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos consists of three fat volumes totalling over 1500 pages. Within these volumes are 144 `zoo profiles', around 90 `animal profiles', 20 or so essays on individuals or families connected with the zoo world, and a number of other pieces on subjects as diverse as Fund-raising, Staff, Zoo Biology and Africa: National Legislation and Licensing. The authors of these pieces, too, are a diverse bunch: many will be familiar to readers of I.Z.N. – Gunther Nogge, Roger Wheater, Ken Kawata, Terry Maple, Herman Reichenbach, Kurt Benirschke, Nicholas Gould and Warren Thomas amongst them. Others are less well known. The encyclopedia is well stocked with black-and-white photographs.

The disappointment of the encyclopedia is in its extreme patchiness. In parts it is very good. Some of the essays are superb, important pieces – but too many are not. A significant proportion of the zoo profiles appear to have been produced by people without any real feeling for the places about which they write: the piece on Cairo's Giza Zoo, for example, gives almost no sense at all of what the zoo is like today; even less forgivable is the essay on London Zoo, which makes room for such platitudes as `the gentle gorillas tend to be favourites with the visitors', but does not include mention of the fact that for most of the 1990s Britain's oldest zoo was embroiled in a closure crisis from which it is even now still struggling to recover. There are good essays as well – several of those on American zoos, most of the German pieces, and some which detail zoos in off-beat locations such as Costa Rica and Belize – but the good are outnumbered by the mediocre and the bad.

Errors are frequent enough to be a major distraction. Pictures are mislabelled, species names are listed incorrectly, dates are wrong. How can we have any faith in an encyclopedia that talks of stellar sea eagles, Bennet wallabies and Thompson's gazelles? How can we trust a book which invents new species: dwarf bonobos and spoonbill storks amongst them? Time after time, the authority of the encyclopedia is thus undermined. The blame for all of this must be laid primarily at the feet of editor Catharine Bell. Surely it is the job of the editor to spot when contributors fail to translate from German to English in the articles they submit – so why do we read of varis, dscheladas and hokkos? Surely it is the job of the editor to correct inconsistencies, so why, when Nicholas Gould has contributed an accurate history of I.Z.N., do entries by Sally Walker and Vernon Kisling – two writers who really should know better – suggest, respectively, that it is published three times a year and was founded in Holland, instead of eight times and Denmark? Surely an editor has overall responsibility for pictures and their captions, so why is the essay on leopards of the Panthera pardus species illustrated with a charming picture of two snow leopards? And why is a picture that clearly shows three common hippos labelled as being of pygmy hippos, not once but twice? All of these mistakes – and believe me, I have only scratched the surface – reveal a lack of care, a lack of precision. It is this sloppiness which makes this such a frustrating book.

There are other editorial matters over which one might quibble. Why devote twelve pages to a cursory overview of the class Mammalia? Why is one of the forty or so mammal profiles given over to that well-known staple of any zoo's collection, the stick-nest rat? Do we really need an essay on Facilities Maintenance? Why were aquariums excluded from the definition of what it is that makes a zoo? In fact, pretty much all of the animal profiles – not just those on the stick-nest rat and Attwater's prairie chicken – are rather odd. There are some first-class essays there – that on tapirs, written by Sheryl Todd and Sharon Matola, does everything that one would want such an essay in such a book to do – but the majority are less satisfactory. Their purpose is nebulous, their connection to zoos tenuous.

It is an enormous shame that the quality of this encyclopedia has been so heavily compromised. If the book was wholly bad it would not matter – we could just forget about the whole exercise. But there really is so much within The Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos which is wonderful: the photographs are mostly terrific, with some rarely-seen historical pictures which are of lasting interest; the essays which do hit the mark are often excellent; those writers who have taken care over their pieces have produced work which is frequently as good as you will find anywhere (look especially at the pieces on the zoos of Hamburg, Howletts and Port Lympne, and Berlin to see how this sort of thing should be done). If the quality had been consistent, The Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos would have been an essential purchase. As it is, it falls far short too often and too obviously – such a pity when it could have been so very good indeed.

John Tuson

* * *


Zoo animals lose a friend

I was saddened to learn of the death on 30 September 2001 of Trevor Poole, in whose company I remember taking an enjoyable and stimulating walk around Colchester Zoo some years ago. Dr Poole joined the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in 1983 as Scientific Editor and Director of Research, played a major role in the organisation of many of UFAW's scientific projects, and was a driving force behind the establishment of its journal Animal Welfare. He was especially active in promoting the well-being of laboratory and zoo animals in the U.K. and around the world, and championed a rigorous scientific approach to enriching the lives and housing of zoo animals. He lectured extensively on animal welfare and published many papers on the subject. He will be greatly missed by the many friends he made in the zoo community.

Nicholas Gould

A new parrotbill discovered in Italy?

An unknown species of South-east Asian parrotbill, related to the ashy-throated parrotbill (Paradoxornis alphonsianus), is becoming naturalized in the Natural Reserve of Palude Brebbia, Varese, North Italy, probably after escaping from a nearby animal dealer in 1995. Experts from the Natural History Museum of London were unable to assign one specimen to known species of the genus. Although it is unlikely that this as yet undescribed taxon is seriously threatened in its unknown original range, the feasibility of beginning a captive-breeding programme utilising the Italian population as source should be investigated.

Translated and abridged by Spartaco Gippoliti from A. Andreotti et al., Mammiferi e Uccelli Esotici in Italia [Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura, 2], 2001.

Evolution in action in the zoo

It is now well-known that the evolution of new taxa may at times be much more rapid than previously thought. This has, for example, recently been beautifully and succinctly explained by Schilthuizen (2001), who strongly argues for frequent occurrence of `sympatric speciation' – the development of new taxa from a common ancestor within a single geographic range. A beautiful example of remarkably rapid divergence under zoo conditions has now been published.

Many readers will be familiar with Burgers' Bush (1988; vide Wensing, 2000), the tropical rain forest habitat in Burgers' Zoo, Arnhem, the Netherlands. This is a bold concept of 15,000 m2 featuring a more or less convincing tropical rain forest with many animals, mostly free-ranging but with some confined to enclosures (e.g. aardvark, capybara, etc.). There are two very large ponds, harbouring respectively West Indian manatees and common caimans. The former pond is accessible to all animals living in the Bush, but the latter is separated by netting, etc., from the main habitat, so that the caimans cannot prey on the free-ranging animals. Both ponds contain large populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata).

After eight years P.C. Albers, a researcher from the Ethology and Socio-ecology Group of Utrecht University (at that time under the leadership of Prof. J.A.R.A.M. van Hooff, brother to the director of the zoo), observed a difference between the guppies in the two ponds. For example, the guppies in the caiman pond seemed to be larger than those cohabiting with the manatees. Subsequently he decided to investigate what might have caused this phenomenon.

The semi-natural circumstances of the two ponds appeared to differ considerably. The breeding pond with the manatees in the open area suffered heavy predation of the guppies by two free-flying adult snakebirds or darters (Anhinga melanogaster). From observations it was calculated that these birds caught some 2,000 guppies per day. Obviously, this was a sustainable harvest as the population amounted to about 500,000 individuals. Loss by predation was far exceeded by the natural increase in numbers. As noted above, the snakebirds were excluded from the cayman pond.

Guppy specimens from both populations were caught and raised in laboratory glass tanks for further evaluation. We quote from the abstract of the paper in question (Albers, 2000, p. 425): `The two populations showed marked differences in length and coloration. Young from both stock were then raised under identical conditions and were still found to differ. This leads to the conclusion that some of the differences are genetical and therefore the result of evolution within this semi-natural environment. The speed of these changes is compatible to what has been published about wild guppies. Also differences in behaviour between the two populations were ascertained.'

This is a most interesting case of rapid `speciation' which at least in addition calls for DNA investigation. Perhaps it all began with the two ponds harbouring separate populations of guppies – would this have initiated (micro)allopatric speciation because of the absence of genetic exchange? Unequal predation pressure on the two communities may have speeded up the process. It is an example of interesting developments caused by the creation of a semi-natural environment. Make no mistake – lush though it looks, Burgers' Bush can only be a semi-natural environment, but nevertheless it obviously lends itself to unexpected natural experiments!

Dr. A.C. van Bruggen, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (


Albers, P.C. (2000). Evidence for evolution of guppies in a semi-natural environment. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 50 (4): 425–433.

Schilthuizen, M. (2001): Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: Speciation – the Evolution of New Species. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wensing, J. (2000): Burgers' Bush: Der Versuch, ein Ökosystem zu präsentieren. Zeitschrift des Kölner Zoo 43 (2): 93–100.

Memory and recognition in sheep

Researchers at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, U.K., have found that sheep are nowhere near as stupid as is generally believed – they can remember dozens of faces, learn complex tasks and even pine for absent friends and shepherds. A report on the team's experiments [K.M. Kendrick et al., Nature 414 (8 November 2001), 165–6] describes how 20 sheep were trained to find their way through a maze, at the end of which they were rewarded with food. To test the animals' memories, all 25 junctions in the maze were marked with a `signpost' consisting of a pair of different sheep faces, one marking the way to the treat and the other setting a false trail. After about 30 attempts, the sheep were successfully navigating the maze 80 per cent of the time, even when the food reward was withdrawn. This indicated that they had learned to recognise the idiosyncrasies of the 50 faces they encountered, and their significance. Over the following six weeks, the test was repeated using pictures of sheep in profile, rather than face on, with the same results. Only after about two years did the animals' memory start to decline significantly.

In the next stage of the research the scientists took electrical readings from the brains of the sheep, using electrodes to discover the response of individual brain regions and cells to the same visual cues. They focused on parts of the temporal and frontal lobes which are known to process faces and emotional response in human beings and monkeys. When the sheep were shown pictures of an unknown sheep or human face, the activity in these brain regions remained quiet, but when they were shown a familiar face, the cells sprang into life, showing a clear emotional response. A similar effect was seen when the animals were shown the face of an `absent friend' – a sheep or human being to whom they had been exposed regularly for 12 to 15 months, but from whom they had been separated for eight to 12 months.

The team's leader, Dr Keith Kendrick, says the results suggest that sheep process such information and react to it in a similar fashion to human beings. Their ability to recognise faces by visual means seems to be much greater than that of domestic dogs and cats (though these species also use smell and other cues to identify individuals). `They do it in a similar way to humans, and if they have the same kind of ability as we ourselves do in one of the most difficult mental activities we do, their intelligence may be much greater and their social relationships more rich and complex than was previously thought.'

* * *


Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Ohio, U.S.A.

Enhancements to the alcid husbandry protocols have led to the hatching and rearing of two auklet taxa, marking the first of their species to breed in any zoo or aquarium. On 24 July, a whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea) chick was successfully hatched after being incubated for 34 days. On 3 August, a least auklet (Aethia pusilla) successfully hatched. Both eggs were incubated by the parents, and subsequently the chicks were pulled at 48 hours of age. Cincinnati is the only zoo to have successfully maintained and propagated these auklet species. [For a note on the wild-caught founders of Cincinnati's least auklet group, see I.Z.N. 48 (7), p. 478 – Ed.]

On 5 August, a pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) chick was hatched; this was the first second-generation hatching at the zoo. The parents reared it for three weeks, after which it was pulled for hand-rearing.

Information regarding the population dynamics of the whiskered auklet is limited. Both whiskered and least auklets are vulnerable to introduced mammalian predators and environmental hazards. Cincinnati Zoo has been working in the field and with the captive colonies to increase knowledge of these birds' natural history and to monitor the health of the wild populations. This information will be utilized in the long-term conservation of the auklets in the North Pacific.

AZA Communiqué (October 2001)

Columbus Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A.

After spending more than a year at the zoo, two Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) were transported to Virginia Marine Science Museum for eventual release. The highly endangered turtles will spend a few weeks at the Virginia Beach facility, where keepers will acclimate them to natural foods such as crabs, and introduce them to other invertebrates they might encounter in the wild. They will be tagged and then released at a later date.

The turtles were rescued from the Cape Cod shores after suffering from `cold stunning', a result of the sudden approach of winter weather during their migration. Kemp's ridleys are the most endangered species of sea turtle; in the late 1940s, their population was estimated at over 40,000 individuals, but today has dropped to around 6,000 to 7,000.

In all, Columbus Zoo has rehabilitated four Kemp's ridleys, two of which were released last summer. This more recent pair was acquired from Mystic Aquarium. The turtles have received critical medical care while recovering at the zoo, and experienced significant weight gain in their one-year sojourn.

AZA Communiqué (September 2001)

Healesville Sanctuary, Victoria, Australia

The majority of orange-bellied parrots (Neophema chrysogaster) – there are only about 200 left in the wild – breed at a site called Melaleuca in south-west Tasmania [see I.Z.N. 42 (6), 383; 43 (2), 122; 44 (8), 489; 47 (8), 536]. For the past two years the Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Program has been releasing captive-bred birds to Birch's Inlet, a former breeding site of the species, a little to the north of Melaleuca. The aim of the release is to boost wild numbers as well as establishing a second population to provide insurance against natural catastrophes such as fire.

As part of the release program, volunteers spend up to two weeks in almost total isolation monitoring the birds after release. Their responsibilities are to monitor bird numbers, record weather details, place seed on the feed table for the birds and maintain and feed the pair of `call birds'. The latter remain in an aviary until just before the free-living parrots are due to migrate to the mainland, where they reside during the winter months. The purpose of the call birds is to help keep the released birds in the area. During February and October 2000 I spent over four weeks at Birch's Inlet monitoring the released birds. In February ten of the 33 birds originally released in October 1999 were still present and were in excellent condition; they were feeding on several native grass species and were breeding in the nest boxes that had been placed in the area. From these ten birds seven young were produced, and one of these 17 birds was identified on the mainland during the winter surveys.

During 2000, 29 birds were taken to Birch's Inlet (20 bred at Healesville and nine at Taroona in Tasmania). The birds were housed in two aviaries for a period of 20 days. I was fortunate enough to be one of two people opening up the aviaries and watching the birds venture out into their new environment. Upon release a lot of them were hesitant, only just stepping out of the aviary and then returning. Bonding between males and females had already been taking place, so it was fascinating to watch some birds wait for their partner before flying away from the aviaries. It took most of the day for the birds to leave, and we had to catch up six birds and physically release them from one aviary because they didn't get the hint.

After two weeks 17 of the 29 were still around the release site, four nest boxes were being used, and all the birds looked to be in excellent condition despite the heavy hail, rain, wind and low temperatures (down to minus 4° C one night) they had endured since their release. Having nearly a 60% survivorship at this stage is a good result, with breeding activity an added bonus. Previous programs I have been involved with show that the first two weeks after release or relocation are the most crucial. This release is the most successful I have seen, and it has certainly increased my enthusiasm and optimism for this and other programs. However, these birds have to fly to and from the mainland, and only four known captive-bred orange-bellied parrots have done this so far. But with an increased captive-breeding output coinciding with a greater number of birds being released at one time, there is a good chance that the species will become re-established at Birch's Inlet.

Adapted from Jim Thomas in Zoo News Vol. 21, No. 3 (September 2001), with additional material from the website

Himeji City Aquarium, Japan

Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) eggs were collected on the coast of Shikoku Island in 1983 by aquarium staff. One of the turtles from this batch of eggs, a female hatched on 27 September of that year, grew up in the aquarium tank. She was introduced to a wild-caught male in 1992, and they began to copulate on 3 April 1995. Between that year and 1999 she laid a total of 304 eggs in the tank without the benefit of a sandbank. One of the eggs hatched in 1997, but the young died within a month. During her sixth breeding season in 2001 (she skipped 2000), she laid 89 eggs between 19 and 21 May. Five young hatched between 19 and 22 July, and they are doing well. This is believed to be the first time in Japan that a captive-hatched loggerhead has become a parent.

Abridged and translated by Ken Kawata from a Japanese text by Osamu Masuda in Newsletter of Himeji City Aquarium No. 39 (September 2001)

La Palmyre Zoo, Les Mathes, France

The zoo's little herd of Asian elephants consisted of five (2.3) animals in spring 2001: the bull Chinto (32 years old), the two Burmese cows Alix and Malicia (18 and 17) and their two offspring from 1995 (0.1 Homaline) and 1996 (1.0 Jacky). Alix, Homaline's mother, was mated by Chinto for the last time in September 1999, and urine analyses in early 2001 confirmed her pregnancy. But on 19 May 2001 the elephant keepers discovered a newborn but dead elephant calf, delivered not by Alix but by her daughter Homaline. Homaline was only five years, six months and 23 days old when she gave birth to the very small (42 kg!) male calf. This took place unexpectedly, as nobody had observed a copulation between Homaline and her father Chinto. It had, however, been noticed that Chinto showed interest in his daughter in early August and early December 1999. If Homaline was successfully inseminated at one of these times, the gestation period would have been either 21.5 or 17.5 months. Considering the low weight of the calf, the latter is more likely, in which case Homaline became pregnant when she was four years and 1.9 months old. She delivered a living calf but immediately killed it; although this is very sad, there are some doubts whether such a small calf could have survived. [This pregnancy, though unusually early, is not quite a record – an Asian cow at Houston Zoo gave birth to an apparently full-term calf at five years and nine months, implying successful impregnation at under four years old. See I.Z.N. 45 (4), pp. 250–251 – Ed.]

Then, after a gestation period of 644 days, Alix gave birth in June 2001 to her second offspring, a healthy male calf for whom she is caring like an experienced mother. The young bull, Jacky, has meanwhile left La Palmyre and gone to another French zoo, Pont-scorff, as a companion for another young Asian bull (born in 1994 at Emmen) and the three older females there.

Jürgen Schilfarth, European Elephant Group

National Zoo, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

In May 2001, the zoo's Invertebrate Exhibit welcomed a 12-pound [5.5 kg] female giant Pacific octopus (Octopus dofleini) – the largest octopus species in the world. She was taken from the coastal waters off Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. Octopuses are rather small in warm tropical waters, and large in colder waters such as the north Pacific. They have well-developed brains and excellent eyesight; their intelligence is sometimes compared to that of a house cat. Our female will be part of an enrichment research program. Zoo staff will put baskets and floating colored balls in her aquarium to encourage her to explore the surroundings. They will then monitor her reactions in order to find the best ways to improve her welfare. Some octopuses in zoos have learned to identify patterns and run mazes, while others have been trained to find crabs in hidden places, such as behind doors marked with signs.

Abridged from Annie Saint-Amand in Zoogoer (July/August 2001)

Parque de la Naturaleza de Cabarceno, Spain

An African elephant cow at the park, Zambi, gave birth to a healthy female calf on 14 August 2001. The birth took place in the early hours of the morning in the individual stall where Zambi stays during the night. The baby was born without any problems, and as Zambi is an experienced mother (this is her third calf since 1996) she cared perfectly for it. As the weather was very good and the calf suckled soon after standing up, mother and calf went outside with the herd that same day, and the baby is thriving well. Twenty-year-old Zambi was formerly kept at two German zoos (Wuppertal and Augsburg) where she started to attack keepers, so the decision was made to try to place her in a facility with a hands-off system. With the help of the European Elephant Group she was moved to Cabarceno, and came to be the favourite of the dominant bull, Chisco – sire of all the park's elephant calves – and turned out to be a model mother. A total of eight African elephants have been bred in the park since 1995 (of whom six have survived), and Cabarceno is now the most prolific breeder of African elephants in Europe. The herd currently stands at 15 (4.11) animals, and the only institution in the world which is more successful in reproduction of African elephants is Ramat-Gan in Israel, where 21 African elephants have been bred since 1973.

Jürgen Schilfarth, European Elephant Group

Rio de Janeiro Primate Center, Brazil

In the early 1970s, the Brazilian National Research Council held preliminary discussions to seriously assess the problem of conserving neotropical primates, and in 1975 the newly formed Fundação Estadual de Engenharia do Meio Ambiente (FEEMA) authorized the implementation of a small staff to study the status of the country's primates, particularly in eastern Brazil. This small primate research center set up by FEEMA was also devoted to the careful breeding of the most endangered forms in captivity. The center gradually expanded its activities, and a few years later, in 1979, became the Centro de Primatologia do Rio de Janeiro (CPRJ).

CPRJ is one of only two primate breeding centers in Brazil. (The other is the Centro Nacional de Primatas, which focuses on biomedicine as well as the breeding of primate species.) CPRJ is located in the Serra dos Óragãos National Park, a 27,500-acre (11,000-hectare) mountainous area with abrupt slopes and deep valleys, whose summit, the `Pedra do Sino', is more than 6,600 feet (2,000 meters) high. The center is situated about 62 miles (100 km) from the center of the city of Rio de Janeiro and covers some 640 acres (260 ha) in the foothills of Serra dos Óragãos, an area which is one of the best surviving stretches of Atlantic forest in the state of Rio de Janeiro. A large part of the area retains much of its natural fauna and flora.

CPRJ's activities really took off only five years ago, but it is an excellent example of what can be done to help find solutions to Brazil's animal conservation problems. In addition to preserving endangered species, CPRJ carries out research in complex and little-studied areas. It therefore requires support and understanding from the Brazilian scientific community, and the indispensable collaboration of foreign institutions and experts. With some of its facilities now complete, the center can carry out practical work, such as encouraging research by young scientists and students. There are several buildings on the CPRJ campus, including headquarters, management and nutrition services, and the acclimatization laboratory, which was built with funds provided by the Smithsonian Institute. This lab helps to get zoo-bred golden lion tamarins sent for reintroduction ready for the tropical weather of Brazil.

The monkeys, marmosets and tamarins that make up the CPRJ colonies are housed in 80 enclosures specifically designed for breeding endangered Brazilian primates. CPRJ has a staff of 12, four with university degrees, who work in four different areas. But all staff assist with any activity needing more hands; this is expected of them due to shortage of personnel. (The center has had roughly the same number of staff members since its opening in 1979, although its activities have increased tenfold.)

The first area of service provided by CPRJ is that of veterinary medicine. This service is responsible for the primate colonies, concentrating on preventive measures aimed at giving the animals a healthy life and encouraging normal breeding. The animals are observed daily, and strict sanitary control measures are used to prevent infection. Management and nutrition services deal with the housing and feeding of the monkeys, design and supervise the construction of enclosures, and maintain the living quarters for the primates. Staff members gather information, investigate feeding and nutrition, and develop new management and recording techniques. They produce specialized articles on management, diet, and feeding techniques for captive primates, and provide these animals with careful maintenance. The endangered animals are given good diets, particularly considering that very little is yet known about the real food requirements of New World monkeys in general.

CPRJ's goal is to save at least some Brazilian species of primates, particularly those found in the eastern region of the country. We have started an important captive-breeding program for these species, with the additional aim of obtaining individuals for future repopulation or reintroductions in well-managed nature reserves. Species which breed here include the critically-endangered woolly spider monkey (Brachyteles arachnoides) and Wied's marmoset (Callithrix kuhlii). The center also collaborates in setting up satellite colonies in other locations, for safety's sake, to prevent possible disasters such as epidemics from wiping out the only colony. Each colony consists of ten pairs, and care is taken to use individuals from different locations to form breeding pairs in order to maintain a reasonable amount of genetic variation.

CPRJ has received all kinds of support from zoos in the U.S.A. and Europe, and it is difficult for us to find the right words to show how much gratitude we feel for this extraordinary help. For the future, I would like a North American zoo or university to think of establishing an advanced campus in this area, which could become a place to study and conserve neotropical primates such as golden lion tamarins.

Adapted and abridged from Dr Alcides Pissinatti, Director, CPRJ, in Zoo View (Los Angeles Zoo) Vol. 35, No. 3 (Summer 2001)

Rotterdam Zoo, The Netherlands

Two okapis were recently born at the zoo. A son, Deto, was born to Demba on 24 August, and Lisala gave birth to her daughter Lodja on 26 October. Deto is the sixth generation to be held at Rotterdam, which is a record for a single zoo in Europe, and possibly in the world. Lodja is the 34th okapi birth at Rotterdam. Deto and Lodja are the first okapis to be born at the zoo since the okapi outdoor facilities were renovated and slightly shifted on the site. The facilities are built to accommodate 2.3 adults plus offspring. Although renovations are still not entirely finished, the new area was opened in April, and the okapis seem to be adjusting well to their new surroundings. The European okapi population has reached a record high, now numbering 50 (25.25) animals.

Five red river hogs (Potamochoerus porcus pictus) were born on 13 October, of which four have survived. The group, consisting of 2.6.4 animals, has a mixed age structure that makes for an interesting and active exhibit. In addition to the 1.2 adults, the young still in the group (all produced by the male and only one of the females) include 1.0 from 1999, 0.3 from June 2000, 0.1 from May 2001 and the recently born piglets. While these attractive pigs are common in their native range in Africa south of the Sahara, the captive population consists of regrettably few founders.

A researcher from the University in Essen, Germany, has initiated a two-year study of sexual reproduction of stony corals in aquaria. Stony corals are rarely reproduced in aquaria, and then only via vegetative (asexual) propagation. Vegetative propagation leaves the corals susceptible to diseases and parasites and does not provide new genetic material. The study is being done in the Oceanium laboratory at Rotterdam Zoo, in close collaboration with aquaria in Düsseldorf and Curaçao (Porto Mari), Cologne Zoo, Hamburg Zoo and the Ochanomizu University in Tokyo. Stony coral eggs and larvae will be collected near Curaçao for this study.

Rotterdam Zoo's conservation Bernardine Fund is helping to support a project undertaken by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation to study movements of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). Three turtles were recently implanted with transponders when they came ashore on the important egg-laying beach near Tortuguero in Costa Rica. The turtle adopted by Rotterdam Zoo, Peddel 2, was named after Peddel 1, the first animal released into the zoo's Oceanium. Gathering information on migration of green sea turtles will help Caribbean countries to protect water zones important to this species. Satellite tracking of the turtles can be followed on the web-sites for the zoo (www.diergardeblijdorp.

nl) and the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (

The construction of the Oceanium was finished with the completion of the Falkland Island king penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus) enclosure, and the Oceanium was officially opened on 27 June 2001. The 12.8 king penguins (ranging from 18 to two years of age) received from Sea World in the U.S.A. have settled in nicely: two pairs produced eggs only 15 weeks after their arrival on 17 June! Both pairs are incubating well, and it remains to be seen whether the eggs are fertile. The penguins were initially reluctant to enter their spacious 450,000-litre salt-water basin, possibly suspecting that a predator awaited them. It was almost three weeks before the penguins (literally) made the jump with some coaxing from their keepers, but now they use the pool extensively, often swimming only centimetres away from their admiring public. Two more females arrived on loan from Basel Zoo in September, and have integrated well into the group. The colony will be further expanded in the future, as the enclosure was designed to accommodate 20.20 adults plus young.

Another spectacular addition to the Oceanium is the giant octopus Okkie, received in July. A giant octopus can live approximately four years and grow to two metres in length. Okkie, caught in the Pacific Ocean, is now about a half a metre in size. Giant octopuses have never bred successfully in captivity; thus it is hoped that the zoo will be able to establish the husbandry and breeding requirements of this delicate species and to breed it in the future.

Catherine E. King

St Catherine's Island Wildlife Survival Center (Wildlife Conservation Society), Georgia, U.S.A.

A `freemartin' is defined as a calf in which the sex of a genetic female is apparently modified by male hormones or chimerism resulting from the presence of a male fetus. In simplest terms, a freemartin is a sterile female born as twin to a male. Freemartinism is one of the most frequent congenital abnormalities affecting the fertility of female domestic cattle; but although well known to most cattle farmers, it has never been reported in exotic bovines in captivity.

On 28 November 2000, a female lesser kudu gave birth to twins at the Wildlife Survival Center. The incidence of twinning in most antelopes is extremely rare, and the staff were further alerted to watch the female twin when they noted the presence of horn buds, which ordinarily only appear in males. Eight days after the birth, the female began showing signs of deteriorating health, and maternal neglect was suspected. The calf responded quickly to hand-rearing, and her health improved progressively. The veterinary and animal management staffs decided to take advantage of the opportunity presented by hand-rearing the calf, and began testing for freemartinism. Physical examination and cytogenetic analysis showed that the calf is unambiguously a freemartin.

Although twinning is rare in most antelopes, it is possible for any species. Testing of all mixed twins for the possibility of freemartinism could greatly benefit captive populations through early detection of any abnormalities. Furthermore, any evidence of reproductive failure of an antelope species should be investigated. In some cases, there are no symptoms of freemartinism, because the male twin may have been aborted at an earlier stage of gestation. Animals involved in reproductive pairing who repetitively fail to conceive should be tested. Although the incidence of freemartinism in exotic animals is just beginning to be reported, it could, if undetected, have damaging effects on a closed population.

Joseph Robertia in AZA Communiqué (October 2001)

Vallée des Singes, Romagne, France

A female red titi monkey (Callicebus c. cupreus) was born at the zoo in March 2001. Its parents and two brothers were received from the California Regional Primate Center, Davis, U.S.A., in October 2000. In contrast to the available literature on the genus, the youngest son did most of the carrying of his sibling during the first few days. He was later assisted by his father and brother, and after two weeks the father became the principal carrier. The mother only took the baby for nursing. Titi monkeys are extremely rare in European zoos. Davis University have agreed to send their colony of over 60 animals to Europe, but up to now only ten have arrived, of which only the group at Romagne survives. The EAZA Primate TAG has included the titi monkey in its European regional collection plan.

Other births this year include a male gorilla and a female white-bellied spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth hybridus). The gorilla, born on 25 March, is the second bred at the zoo and the first offspring of the 17-year-old hand-reared mother, who is rearing her son. The spider monkey, born on 17 June, is a welcome addition to the small captive population of this endangered subspecies.

Jan Vermeer in EAZA News No. 36 (October–December 2001)

News in brief

An African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) has been successfully hatched by surrogate parents at Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, Indiana. On 2 April, Baltimore Zoo keepers took the egg to Fort Wayne in a mobile incubator. It was inserted into the nest of a pair of experienced breeders and hatched on 7 April. The 18- and 19-year-old foster parents cared for the chick for two weeks, after which it was removed for hand-rearing, and on 20 June it was reintroduced to the 20 adult penguins on exhibit.

* * * * *

The £86-million Eden Project, Cornwall, U.K., plans to use lizards and tree frogs for insect control. Tropical finches and praying mantises have already been introduced into the `biomes', as the huge greenhouses in a disused clay pit are called, and two species of gecko, one nocturnal, will follow shortly. All of these animals will not be fed but will live totally on what they can find. The humid tropical biome houses trees and plants from the Amazon, Africa and Malaysia. Species include rubber trees, coconut palms, bananas and mangroves. The smaller, warm temperate biome houses plants from the Mediterranean climatic zone, including olives, grape vines and oranges.

* * *


Bennett, G.: An investigation into the effectiveness of sound as an enrichment stimulus in captive monkeys. Ratel Vol. 28, No. 5 (2001), pp. 176–184. [Edinburgh Zoo.]

Brovard, L.: Attempted rehabilitation of a stranded bottlenose dolphin calf. Ratel Vol. 28, No. 5 (2001), pp. 162–173.

Clauss, M., Lechner-Doll, M., Flach, E.J., Tack, C., and Hatt, J.-M.: Comparative use of four different marker systems for the estimation of digestibility and low food intake in a group of captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 315–329. [In a feeding trial with four giraffes at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, U.K., nutrient digestibility was determined using four different marker systems. The values derived from the C36 n-alkane assay seemed to be the most reliable. Apparent digestibility ranges thus determined were 63.5–74.3% for dry matter, 73.4–82.4% for crude protein, 49.9–62.2% for neutral detergent fibre, and 49.7–63.7% for acid detergent fibre. However, digestibility data gained by the acid detergent lignin method provided the most stringent inter-individual comparisons. These giraffes ingested a smaller quantity of food than has been reported for other giraffes, both wild and captive. Energetic calculations showed that these animals might be on the brink of an energy deficit. A similar situation has been described at least once before in zoo giraffes, and the results are of direct relevance to `peracute mortality syndrome', a condition of captive giraffes in which severe depletion of body fat stores occurs. Reasons for the seemingly low food intake could not be elucidated, but observations suggested that these giraffes were ready to ingest more if more palatable or suitable food was offered. Monitoring food intake in other giraffe groups and designing a diet that is both palatable and nutritious are important objectives of captive giraffe management.]

Fritz, J., Lewis, B., and Howell, S.: Food preparation among primates: an alloprimate discussion. The Newsletter Vol. 12, No. 2 (2001), p. 2. [A brief list of observations of food preparation by captive primates (mainly variations on the theme of soaking, though capuchins show more originality than the other species included).]

Grimes, J., and Logan, C.: Nest attendants in parakeet auklets. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 271–277. [Breeding behaviours in a population of Cyclorrhynchus psittacula at North Carolina Zoo were observed to determine whether a third bird present at the entrances to nest tunnels was a helper or competitor. Comparisons were made between focal pairs of nesting birds, two with and two without attendants. Pairs with attendants spent more time feeding and more time bathing and had less time with intruders (other than the third bird) at their tunnels. `Nest attendants' also helped in nest defence and incubation, taking some of the burden off the focal pair. This is the first evidence of cooperative breeding in alcids, and the present data do not address the factors that might benefit the helper. Kin selection is unlikely, as all the adults in the study were wild-caught as nestlings taken from separate nests. With insufficient nest tunnels for all adult birds, however, attendants may benefit by gaining valuable breeding experience.]

Hesterman, H., Gregory, N.G., and Boardman, W.S.J.: Deflighting procedures and their welfare implications in captive birds. Animal Welfare Vol. 10, No. 4 (2001), pp. 405–419. [Deflighting is used to prevent large captive birds from escaping by limiting their ability to fly. This practice deprives birds of this normal behaviour, but can allow them to express other behaviours that would be suppressed if they were confined to cages or aviaries. The potential negative welfare issues associated with deflighting include the stress of capture and restraint, pain and discomfort associated with the procedure and during recovery, risk of post-operative infections, risk of neuroma formation which could lead to pain, and loss of the ability to fly. The potential practical and welfare advantages of deflighting include a reduction in the need to closely confine or cage birds to prevent them from escaping, and deflighting may be the only way of keeping particular birds in an open situation for display, such as in parks or zoos. In these respects, there must be a balance between the requirement for the practice and the welfare compromises it introduces for birds. By outlining temporary and permanent methods and the complications involved, the authors highlight potential welfare problems and discuss ways of avoiding them. They also evaluate the necessity of deflighting and the need for careful risk assessment.]

Jones, K.L., and Nicolich, J.M.: Artificial insemination in captive whooping cranes: results from genetic analyses. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 331–342. [Artificial insemination has been used frequently in the captive whooping crane (Grus americana) population. In the 1980s, it was necessary at times to inseminate females with semen from several males during the breeding season, or with semen from multiple males simultaneously, due to unknown sperm viability of the breeding males. The goals of this study were to apply microsatellite DNA profiles to resolve uncertain paternities and to use these results to evaluate the current paternity assignment assumptions used by captive managers. Microsatellite DNA profiles were successful in resolving 20 of 23 paternity questions. When resolved paternities were coupled with data on insemination timing, substantial information was revealed on fertilization timing in captive whooping cranes. Delayed fertilization from inseminations 6+ days pre-oviposition suggests capability of sperm storage.]

Kalinowski, S.T., and Hedrick, P.W.: Inbreeding depression in captive bighorn sheep. Animal Conservation Vol. 4, No. 4 (2001), pp. 319–324. [The authors estimated the extent of inbreeding depression for juvenile survival in 589 captive-born bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and, unlike an earlier report, found no evidence of significant inbreeding depression. There did not appear to be any overall effect of year of birth, place of birth, subspecies, sex or ancestral inbreeding upon the viability of inbred animals as compared to non-inbred animals. However, for the first few years of data, there was lower survival for inbred than non-inbred offspring. After this period, there was an increase in the viability of inbred offspring, probably reflecting a general improvement in husbandry conditions in the zoos. It should be emphasized that the lack of significant inbreeding depression does not necessarily imply that there may not be inbreeding depression for other traits or in a less benign or more natural environment for juvenile viability.]

Kenny, D.E.: Long-term administration of α-tocopherol in captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 245–250. [After the death in 1989 at Denver Zoo of an African elephant with very low circulating serum α-tocopherol, a long-term study was initiated with three Asian elephants to evaluate the effect of an oral micellized, water-soluble, natural source d-α-tocopherol supplement. Baseline α-tocopherol levels were evaluated and found to be approximately 3.75-fold less than those reported for semi-free-ranging Asian (Nepalese) work-camp and free-ranging African elephants. The Denver elephants were then administered a liquid d-α-tocopherol at 2.2 IU/kg body weight orally once daily. Serum samples were obtained and analyzed at 1, 2, 8 and 12 months, and then annually for 96 months. The oral vitamin E supplement significantly elevated serum levels above baseline and were found to be comparable with levels reported for semi-free-ranging and free-ranging elephants.]

Legaarden, T.K., Walton, J.-P., Plaizier, J.C., McBride, B.W., and Valdes, E.V.: Serum fatty acid analysis and digestibility study in the Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) fed a captive diet supplemented with α-linolenic acid. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 251–259. [Mammals that hibernate must rely on endogenous lipid reserves to survive over winter. In this study at Toronto Zoo, six marmots were fed the zoo's lagomorph diet supplemented with α-linolenic acid, and this was found to elevate the serum levels of essential fatty acids in the animals.]

Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J.E., and Andersen, R.: Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation Vol. 4, No. 4 (2001), pp. 345–349. [A recent analysis found a positive relationship between historical patterns of large carnivore extinction probability and human population density. However, much of the data in this analysis came from a period when carnivore extermination was a management objective. In order to explore the hypothesis that large carnivores can persist at high human densities when the management regime is more favourable, the authors repeated the analysis using up-to-date data from North America and Europe. In North America they found that large carnivore populations have increased after favourable legislation was introduced, despite further increases in human population density. In Europe they found no clear relationship between present carnivore distribution and human population density. They conclude that the existence of effective wildlife management structures is more important than human density per se.]

Murphy, J., Fritz, J., and Howell, S.: Introducing males to form all-male `bachelor' groups at the Primate Foundation of Arizona. The Newsletter Vol. 12, No. 3 (2001), pp. 1–2.

Odum, R.A., and Smith, B.R.:The effects of prorating risk in the development of life-tables. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 279–291. [A study using computer models to investigate two different strategies for assessing risk in the development of age-based life-tables from studbook data sets.]

Pastor-Nieto, R.: Grooming, kinship, and co-feeding in captive spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 293–303. [Allo-grooming is perhaps the most powerful affiliative behaviour observed in non-human primates. However, the functional significance of grooming in New World monkeys has not yet been fully understood, perhaps because grooming is less frequently observed in platyrrhines. To differentiate the potential role of affiliative investment and/or kinship on sharing access to food (`co-feeding') in spider monkeys, behavioural data on grooming, embracing, and feeding were collected from two different groups, a familiar/kin group and a non-familiar/non-kin group, at Centenario Zoo, Mérida Yucatán, Mexico. The results suggest that family-related spider monkeys who engage in grooming tend to share access to food resources more than unfamiliar conspecifics that do not groom. One explanation for this difference is that the unfamiliar study subjects had not yet invested in the affiliative social network, were not reciprocating their affiliative investments, and hence had a higher tendency toward single animals monopolizing resources. Degree of relatedness alone was not found to be a determinant for sharing access to food, suggesting that familiarity in spider monkeys is based on the extent to which animals invest in affiliative relationships. In this study, only animals who had engaged in long-term grooming and recognized each other as familiar shared access to food. Therefore, it might be likely that in spider monkeys long-term grooming of high intensity has to be developed for co-feeding to occur.]

Schmid, J., Heistermann, M., Ganslosser, U., and Hodges, J.K.: Introduction of foreign female Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) into an existing group: behavioural reactions and changes in cortisol levels. Animal Welfare Vol. 10, No. 4 (2001), pp. 357–372. [The authors examined the extent to which the introduction of three female elephants (aged 3, 11, and 27 years) into an existing group of 1.4 at Münster Zoo, Germany, affected the behaviour and urinary cortisol levels of the animals involved. Only the females were monitored – the bull was mainly kept separate. Behavioural observations were carried out before transfer and during the six-month period following, and urine samples were collected regularly from each elephant during the whole observation period. All elephants showed behavioural changes during the process of introduction. The transferred animals increased their social behaviour after arrival in the new zoo. Two of them showed an increase in stereotypies and one a reduction. The Münster elephants reacted with decreased frequencies of stereotypies and increased frequencies of social behaviour and manipulation/exploration behaviour. Six months after transfer, three of the four Münster females and one of the three transferred animals showed nearly the same behavioural activity pattern as before transfer; one female still showed elevated stereotypic behaviour. From the four elephants in whom cortisol measurements could be reliably performed (two of the transferred animals and two of the original group), only one (from the original group) responded to the process of introduction with a short-term elevation in urinary cortisol levels. One elephant showed a negative correlation between locomotion and cortisol levels, and one a positive correlation between stereotypies and cortisol levels. Taken together, the results suggest that transfer and introduction caused some stress responses in the elephants, but that stress was neither prolonged nor severe. Serious welfare problems may have been prevented through individual behavioural coping mechanisms and previous experience of stressful situations.]

Schwitzer, C., and Kaumanns, W.: Body weights of ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata) in European zoos with reference to the problem of obesity. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 261–269. [Observations in several European zoos revealed a high proportion of obese individuals in different species of lemurs. This phenomenon was examined in both subspecies of the ruffed lemur. Data on body weight were obtained from 43 animals in 13 zoos, and were compared with weights of wild ruffed lemurs. The captive animals' mean weight was significantly higher than either of two different samples of wild individuals. Using a weight-based definition of obesity, 46.5% of the captive animals were obese. With regard to the captive breeding of this species and the management of zoo individuals as reserve populations, there is a need for further research on the problem of obesity in lemurs and on their nutrition in captivity.]

Stevenson, M.F.: The relevance of zoos and breeding programmes in modern conservation: what is the way forward? Ratel Vol. 28, No. 5 (2001), pp. 152–154.

Willis, K.: Unpedigreed populations and worst-case scenarios. Zoo Biology Vol. 20, No. 4 (2001), pp. 305–314. [A population in which parentage information is not recorded is considered a pedigree `black hole' in terms of genetic management. Integration of animals from such an unpedigreed population into a genetically-managed population is often accomplished by assuming a worst-case scenario and recording all animals as highly interrelated (e.g., full siblings). The author evaluates the assumption that a worst-case scenario is appropriate under a wide variety of circumstances, and suggests that the genetic costs of overestimating relationships among animals from an unpedigreed population are always greater than the genetic costs of underestimating relationships by the same amount. This demonstrates that worst-case scenarios, which are by definition intentional overestimates, are not generally appropriate. A method of obtaining an estimate that will yield the lowest overall genetic cost using the possible maximum and minimum levels of relatedness among animals from the unpedigreed population is presented, along with two methods for implementation. Finally, for cases in which the estimated average relatedness among animals from an unpedigreed population is low, it is recommended that different analytical studbook data sets be used for calculation of inbreeding coefficients and mean kinship coefficients. This strategy would allow close estimation of average relatedness without risking inadvertent pairing of highly related animals from the unpedigreed population.]

Publishers of the periodicals listed:

Animal Conservation, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, U.K.

Animal Welfare, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts. AL4 8AN, U.K.

The Newsletter, Primate Foundation of Arizona, P.O. Box 20027, Mesa, Arizona 85277–0027, U.S.A.

Ratel, Association of British Wild Animal Keepers, c/o Luke Gates, Woodpecker Lodge, Holly Lane, Worplesdon, Guildford, Surrey GU3 3PB, U.K.

Zoo Biology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158, U.S.A.

* * *

Index to Contributors, International Zoo News Volume 48 (2001)

Abu-Eid, Omar, 5, 321

Adler, H. Jörg, 2, 74–77; 4, 246

Azuá, John, see Elling, Eric

Banks, Chris, 5, 303–308

Banks, Chris, & Lee, Jen, 3, 206–207

Barnaby, David, 1, 58–61

Beck, Benjamin B., & Martins, Andreia Fonseca, 4, 256–257

Bilbaut, Marianne, 6, 407–408

Billing, Tony, 2, 117

Blaskiewitz, Bernhard, 1, 72; 3, 209; 4, 280; 7, 474

Bloxam, Quentin, 5, 340

Bos, Corinne, 2, 113–114

Brack, Chris, 7, 468

Brakes, Philippa, 3, 194–196

Brueggen, John, 1, 70–71

Bueno, Miguel, 4, 275

Burge, Beverly, 6, 409

Burgess, Andrea, 6, 404–405

Butler, Simone, 1, 71–72

Castañon, Ignacio, see Navarro, Ana

Challis, Mark, 5, 334–335

Cimino, Ray, 5, 338–340

Clark, Peter, 7, 470–471

Collazo, Jaime A., see White, Thomas H.

Cresswell, Geoff, 7, 449

Damen, Marc, 2, 118–119; 6, 401–402

de Azevedo, Cristiano Schetini, & Faggioli, Ângela Bernadete, 8, 496–503

de Oleveira, Michael, 4, 273

de Ruiter, Maarten, 2, 104, 115–116; 3, 184

Dickson, John, 5, 334

Eizirik, Eduardo, Johnson, Warren E., & O'Brien, Stephen J., 7, 451–452

Elling, Eric, & Azuá, John, 1, 65–67

Emmerich, Alex, 3, 201

Fast, Hermann, see Schwammer, Harald M.

Fernández-Hoyo, Gonzalo, 6, 404

Fiby, Monika, 7, 438–443

Fischer, Martha, 5, 317–318

Fitch-Snyder, Helena, 6391–392

Fletchall, Norah, 4, 273–275

Foose, Thomas J., 4, 255–256

Foster, John, 5, 335–336

Fox, Laurie, 1, 64–65

Freiheit, Clayton F., 1, 6–7

Fukuda, Michio, 4, 262

Fukuda, Michio, Kasai, Nobuhiro, & Hori, Hidemasa, 6, 409–410

Garson, Peter, 7, 456–457

Gibson, Richard, 4, 271

Gippoliti, Spartaco, 2, 104; 3, 147–148; 6, 358, 388–389; 8, 514

Gore, Mauvis, 5, 340–341; 6, 402–403

Göritz, Frank, see Schwammer, Harald M.

Gould, Nicholas, 1, 2–4; 2, 106–107; 3, 189–192, 196–197, 198; 4, 248–250, 253; 5, 294, 313–314; 6, 358–359, 390; 7, 422–423, 460; 8, 514

Grittinger, Thomas F., 1, 7

Guerrero, Simon, see White, Thomas H.

Gungle, Debbie, 5, 345–346

Guy, Murray, 6, 400

Hall-Woods, Monica L., 4, 277–278

Halliday, Tim, 7, 453–455

Herndon, Dawn, 6, 402

Hibbard, Chris, 3, 208–209

Hildebrandt, Thomas, see Schmitt, Dennis, and Schwammer, Harald M.

Hill, Richard L., 2, 134–135

Holz, Peter, 7, 465

Hori, Hidemasa, see Fukuda, Michio, and Sugimoto, Fukuharu

Houck, Marlys, 7, 460–461

Ibler, Benjamin, 2, 133–134

James, Peter, 2, 136–137

Johann, Achim, 4, 268–270

Johnson, Annysa, 2, 132–133

Johnson, Warren E., see Eizirik, Eduardo

Jones, Marvin L., 1, 7–8

Jørgensen, Bent, 1, 5–6

Juniper, Paul John, & Tapper, James Barry, 5, 296–302

Kasai, Nobuhiro, see Fukuda, Michio

Katayanagi, M., see Otozu, W.

Kawata, Ken, 1, 8, 32–41

Keeling, Clinton, 1, 8–9; 3, 184

Kenny, David, & Reading, Richard, 4, 257–258

King, Catherine E., 1, 69–70; 7, 459–460; 8, 522–523

Kingsbury, Andrea, 6, 411–412

Kitchener, Andrew, 1, 55–58; 2, 107–108; 3, 193–194; 7, 458–459

Klös, Heinz-Georg, 1, 9–10

Knowles, J.M., 1, 10–11

Komaya, Ryohei, 7, 474

Kumagai, Gaku, see Terada, Mitsuhiro

Landman, Robert, 5, 346

Lee, Jen, see Banks, Chris

LeVine, Mike, 6, 389–390

Mallinson, Jeremy J.C., 1, 11

Martins, Andreia Fonseca, see Beck, Benjamin B.

Marx, Matthew, 1, 64

Masuda, Osamu, 8, 519–520

Mehrdadfar, Farshid, & Shuler, Joe, 6, 368–376

Millet, James, 7, 455–456

Mitani, J.C., & Watts, D.P., 7, 462

Money, Jack, 1, 68–69

Monterotti, Luca, see Waters, Siân S.

Morikubo, Shu, see Sugimoto, Fukuharu

Morrison, Rob, 7, 463

Naugher, Ken, 6, 408

Navarro, Ana, & Castañon, Ignacio, 7, 467

O'Brien, Stephen J., see Eizirik, Eduardo

Oliver, William L.R., & Perron, Richard, 5, 319–320

Otozu, W., Sekii, T., Katayanagi, M., & Tobita, E., 6, 408–409

Partridge, John, & Sykes-Gatz, Sheila, 4, 224–234

Perron, Richard, see Oliver, William L.R.

Phillips, Mike, 7, 450–451

Pinceel, Ludo, 4, 262–263

Pissinatti, Alcides, 8, 521–522

Platenga, Henriëtte, & van Weerd, Hans, 6, 400

Powell, Janet, 2, 135–136

Prior, Nicholas J., 3, 154–159

Quarantotti, Benedetta Pellegrini, see Waters, Siân S.

Quinton, Natalie, see Waters, Siân S.

Reading, Richard, see Kenny, David

Reed, Rick, 6, 403–404

Rees, Paul A., 3, 170–183

Reggianti, Diego, see Waters, Siân S.

Reichenbach, Herman, 1, 16–30, 53–55; 2, 108–109, 126–127; 5, 314–316; 7, 446–449; 8, 484–495

Reichler, Sandra, 7, 452–453

Riddle, Heidi, see Schmitt, Dennis

Robertia, Joseph, 8, 523–524

Ruivo, Eric Bairrão, see Winkler, Achim

Saint-Amand, Annie, 8, 520

Sato, Maki, see Sugimoto, Fukuharu

Schilfarth, Jürgen, 2, 128, 131–132; 5, 343–344; 8, 520–521

Schleussner, Günther, 6, 410–411

Schmidt, Christian R., 4, 222–223; 5, 341–342

Schmitt, Dennis, Hildebrandt, Thomas, & Riddle, Heidi, 3, 199–200

Schulman, Mark, 4, 258–259

Schürer, Ulrich, 1, 12

Schwammer, Gaby V., see Schwammer, Harald M.

Schwammer, Harald M., 3, 200; 5, 322

Schwammer, Harald M., Fast, Hermann, & Schwammer, Gaby V., 4, 235–239

Schwammer, Harald M., Hildebrandt, Thomas, & Göritz, Frank, 7, 424–429

Sekii, T., see Otozu, W.

Sellar, Morag, 7, 465–467

Shoemaker, Alan H., 1, 69; 3, 205–206; 5, 344–345; 7, 471

Shuler, Joe, see Mehrdadfar, Farshid

Smeeton, Clio, & Waters, Siân S., 2, 112–113

Smith, Graham, 7, 472–473

Smith, Pamela, 2, 135; 4, 276–277

Strehlow, Harro, 1, 49–52; 2, 78–103

Subrizi, Giuseppe, see Waters, Siân S.

Subrizi, Marco, see Waters, Siân S.

Sugimoto, Fukuharu, Morikubo, Shu, Sato, Maki, Takagi, Akira, Hori, Hidemasa, Torikai, Kyoko, & Yoshihara, Masato, 6, 410

Sugita, Heizo, see Takahashi, Yukihiro

Suter, Jamison, 5, 320–321

Sweeney, Roger G., 7, 430–436

Sykes-Gatz, Sheila, see Partridge, John

Takagi, Akira, see Sugimoto, Fukuharu

Takahashi, Yukihiro, & Sugita, Heizo, 4, 279

Tapper, James Barry, see Juniper, Paul John

Tardy, Frédéric, 3, 205

Terada, Mitsuhiro, & Kumagai, Gaku, 3, 207–208

Thomas, Jim, 8, 518–519

Thomas, Rob, 2, 130–131

Thorvaldsson, Baldur, 4, 277

Tobita, E., see Otozu, W.

Tomasova, Kristina, 4, 271–272

Toone, William, 5, 318–319

Topchy, Vladimir, 4, 280

Torikai, Kyoko, see Sugimoto, Fukuharu

Tunnicliffe, Sue Dale, 6, 378–386

Tuson, John, 1, 13–15; 2, 109–110, 125–126; 3, 187–189; 4, 250–253, 253–254; 8, 512–513

van Bruggen, A.C., 1, 42–48; 5, 310–312; 8, 504–510, 514–515

van Dam, G.Th., 1, 6

van Dijk, Jiska, 6, 387

van Herk, Robert, see Veltman, Ko

van Weerd, Hans, see Platenga, Henriëtte

Veenhuizen, Rolf, 3, 202–203; 5, 345

Veltman, Ko, van Herk, Robert, & Westerveld, Ben, 5, 322–323

Vermeer, Jan, 8, 524

Vilella, Francisco J., see White, Thomas H.

Walker, Sally, 1, 12; 5, 336–337

Warburton, Tony, 7, 469–470

Waters, Siân S., Quinton, Natalie, & Webster, Darren, 3, 149–153; see also Smeeton, Clio

Waters, Siân S., Subrizi, Giuseppe, Subrizi, Marco, Reggianti, Diego, Monterotti, Luca, & Quarantotti, Benedetta Pellegrini, 6, 360–366

Watts, D.P., see Mitani, J.C.

Waugh, David, 4, 272–273

Webster, Darren, see Waters, Siân S.

Weigl, Richard, 3, 160–169

Westerveld, Ben, see Veltman, Ko

Whitbread, Sam, 8, 482–483

White, Thomas H., Collazo, Jaime A., Vilella, Francisco J., & Guerrero, Simon, 2, 111–112

Winkler, Achim, & Ruivo, Eric Bairrão, 4, 260–261

Wisniewski, Patrick J., 6, 403, 410

Wood, Richard J., 1, 52

Woollard, Stephen P., 4, 240–245

Yoshihara, Masato, see Sugimoto, Fukuharu

* * *

Index to Books Reviewed, International Zoo News Volume 48 (2001)

Altmann, Stuart A.: Foraging for Survival: Yearling Baboons in Africa. 2, 107–108.

Ames, Alison: The Management and Behaviour of Captive Polar Bears. 5, 313–314.

Bell, Catharine E. (ed.): Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos. 8, 512–513.

Boinski, Sue, & Garber, Paul A. (eds.): On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups. 1, 56–58.

Bonaccorso, Frank J.: Bats of Papua New Guinea. 2, 109–110.

Carter, David J.: Collins Field Guide to Caterpillars of Britain and Europe. 6, 390.

Cole, Theodor C.H.: Wörterbuch der Tiernamen: Latein, Deutsch, Englisch – Deutsch, Latein, Englisch. 5, 314–316.

Csuti, Blair, Sargent, Eva L., & Bechert, Ursula S. (eds.): The Elephant's Foot: Prevention and Care of Foot Conditions in Captive Asian and African Elephants. 7, 449.

del Hoyo, Josep, Elliott, Andrew, & Sargatal, Jordi (eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World: Volume 6 – Mousebirds to Hornbills. 4, 248–249.

Frenz, Lothar: Riesenkraken und Tigerwölfe – auf der Spur Mysteriöser Tiere. 2, 108–109.

Guiler, E.R.: Thylacine: the Tragedy of the Tasmanian Tiger, 5, 310–312.

Hancocks, David: A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future. 4, 250–253.

Harvey, Chris, & Kat, Pieter: Prides: the Lions of Moremi. 4, 253–254.

Henkel, Friedrich-Wilhelm, & Schmidt, Wolfgang: Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar and the Mascarene, Seychelles, and Comoro Islands. 3, 196–197.

Hess, Jörg: Zoo Basel. 1, 44, 53–55.

Kisling, Vernon N. (ed.): Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens. 3, 187–189.

Kunze. G.: Tiergarten Schönbrunn: Von der Menagerie des Kaisers zu Helmut Pechlaners Zoo der Glücklichen Tiere. 1, 42–44.

Lacey, Eileen A., Patton, James L., & Cameron, Guy N. (eds.): Life Underground: the Biology of Subterranean Rodents. 3, 193–194.

Lehrer, Steven (ed.): Bring 'em Back Alive: the Best of Frank Buck. 6, 389–390.

Mann, Janet, Connor, Richard C., Tyack, Peter L., & Whitehead, Hal (eds.): Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales. 3, 194–196.

Marvin, Nigel: Giants. 4, 253–254.

Mebs, Dietrich: Gifttiere: Ein Handbuch für Biologen, Toxikologen, Ärzte und Apotheker. 7, 446–447.

Merz, Anna: Rhino: at the Brink of Extinction. 1, 58–61.

Mittermeier, Russell A., Myers, Norman, & Mittermeier, Cristina Goettsch: Hotspots: Earth's Biologically Richest and most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. 4, 253.

Moeller, H.F.: Der Beutelwolf Thylacinus cynocephalus, 5, 310–312.

Müller, Kurt, & Röthlin, Othmar: Zoo Zürich – Chronik Eines Tiergartens. 1, 44–45, 53–55.

Myers, Robert: Collins Pocket Guide to Coral Reef Fishes: Indo-Pacific and Caribbean. 6, 390.

Oates, John F.: Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. 6, 388–389.

Paddle, R.: The Last Tasmanian Tiger: the History and Extinction of the Thylacine, 5, 310–312.

Pechlaner, H.: Meine Schönbrunner Tiergeschichten. 1, 42–44.

Schmidt, Günter: Giftige und Gefährliche Spinnentiere: Humanpathogene Skorpione, Milben und Spinnen. 7, 446–447.

Schmitz, Armin, & Metzger, Arne: Zoologische Gärten als Kapitalgesellschaften – Geschichtliche Entwicklung und Finanzierung. 1, 53–55.

Schröpel, M. (2000): Im Zeichen des Luchses: 50 Jahre Zoo Magdeburg. Ein Chronik der Gründung und Entwicklung des Zoologischen Gartens Magdeburg. 1, 45–46.

Seidensticker, John, Christie, Sarah, & Jackson, Peter (eds.): Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes. 2, 106–107.

Sinder, Michael (ed.): Von Landois zum Allwetterzoo: 125 Jahre Zoo in Münster. 7, 447–449.

Stattersfield, Alison J., Capper, David R., et al.: Threatened Birds of the World. 4, 248–250.

Straukamp, Werner, Berling, Thomas, & Prüllage, Reinhard: Vom Heimattiergarten zum Familienzoo im Grünen: 50 Jahre Tierpark Nordhorn. 7, 447–449.

Suolahti, Hugo: Die Deutschen Vogelnamen – Eine Wortgeschichtliche Untersuchung. 5, 314–316.

Thenius, Erich: Lebende Fossilien – Oldtimer der Tier- und Pflanzenwelt, Zeugen der Vorzeit. 2, 108–109.

Tudge, Colin: The Variety of Life. 3, 189–192.

van Hooff, A.J.J.J.M. (ed.): Burgers' Zoo. 1, 46–47.

Wiens, John J.: Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. 1, 55–56.

Wilson, Don E., & Cole, F. Russell: Common Names of Mammals of the World. 3, 189–192.

* * *

Subject Index, International Zoo News Volume 48 (2001)

[Primary references to species and genera are under scientific names, with cross-references from common English names. The name of a single species is normally given in the singular, even where the reference is to a number of individuals of that species: thus, e.g., `Cercopithecus neglectus, mixed exhibit with gorilla, Melbourne Zoo' does not imply that the exhibit contains only a single gorilla; but `Hornbills, captive breeding' will refer to an item about more than one species of hornbill. The terms `Zoological Gardens' and `Zoological Park', and their equivalents in other languages, are abbreviated to `Zoo', except in cases where confusion might result.]

Aardvark, see Orycteropus afer

Abronia graminea, breeding, Sedgwick County Zoo, 6, 408

Aceros cassidix, captive-breeding history, 2, 95

Aceros comatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 95

Aceros corrugatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 95–96

Aceros leucocephalus, captive-breeding history, 2, 97

Aceros plicatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 96–97

Aceros undulatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 97

Acinonyx jubatus, `king' born, Nuremberg Zoo, 2, 133–134

Addax, see Addax nasomaculatus

Addax nasomaculatus, breeding by in vitro embryo production, St Louis Zoo, 4, 277–278

Adelaide Zoo, South Australia,

research into foster-rearing, rose-crowned fruit dove, 6, 400

research into seed dispersal role, Torres Strait pigeon, 6, 400

search for wild individuals, brush-tailed phascogale, 7, 463

wild-caught yellow-footed rock wallaby, 3, 201

Aethia pusilla, hand-rearing and breeding, Cincinnati Zoo, 7, 478; 8, 518

Aethia pygmaea, breeding, Cincinnati Zoo, 8, 518

Ailuropoda melanoleuca,

arrival on loan, Moscow Zoo, 7, 468

`bread', San Diego Zoo, 5, 323

brown-and-white, death, 3, 209

Ailurus fulgens,

breeding, Knoxville Zoo, 6, 412

feeding behaviour and activity, Görlitz Zoo, 6, 415

status and conservation, India, 6, 414

Alligator, Chinese, see Alligator sinensis

Alligator sinensis, conservation, 5, 348

Alouatta pigra, husbandry and breeding, Belize Zoo, 5, 335–336

Alsophis antiguae, conservation, 5, 348–349

Alsophis spp., captive breeding, 2, 115–116

Amazon, blue-fronted, see Amazona aestiva; Hispaniolan, see A. ventralis; Puerto Rican, see A. vittata; St Lucia, see A. versicolor; St Vincent, see A. guildingii

Amazona aestiva, homosexual pair bonding, 3, 213

Amazona guildingii, management, Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary, 7 424–429

Amazona ventralis, use as surrogates in Puerto Rican amazon conservation project, 2, 111–112

Amazona versicolor, diet, Jersey Zoo, 5, 350

Amazona vittata, conservation project, 2, 111–112

Amersfoort Zoo, The Netherlands, spotted hyena, 6, 413–414

Amphibians, population declines, 7, 453–455

Amsterdam Zoo, The Netherlands,

breeding, red-faced black spider monkey, 6, 400

dietary research, gorilla, 4, 281

Anaconda, green, see Eunectes murinus

Anastomus lamelligerus, breeding, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 2, 140–141

Animal World, Emerald Safari Resort, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa, 4, 271

Anodorhynchus leari, Brazil claims back confiscated birds, 7, 475

Antananarivo Zoo, Madagascar, captive-breeding programme, narrow-striped mongoose, 2, 141–142

Antelope, Tibetan (chiru), see Pantholops hodgsoni

Anthracoceros a. albirostris, captive-breeding history, 2, 89–90

Anthracoceros albirostris convexus, captive-breeding history, 2, 90–91

Anthracoceros coronatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 89

Anthracoceros malayanus, captive-breeding history, 2, 89

Aptenodytes patagonicus, Rotterdam Zoo, 8, 523

Apteryx spp., captive diet, 2, 117

Aquarium Juan Vicente Seijas, Valencia, Venezuela, 3, 163–164

Aquarium of the Lakes, Cumbria, U.K., common frog's return to birthplace, 5, 347

Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, California, U.S.A., breeding, weedy sea dragon, 6, 400

Ara ararauna, environmental enrichment, York's Wild Kingdom, 6, 411–412

Ara rubrogenys, growth rates, hand-reared and parent-reared, Loro Parque, 7, 467

Argali, see Ovis ammon

Artificial insemination,

African elephant, Schönbrunn Zoo, 7, 424–429

common piping guan, St Louis Zoo, 1, 71; 2, 135–136

Ijima's copper pheasant, Ueno Zoo, 6, 410

Siberian crane, Tierpark Berlin, 7, 474

whooping crane, 8, 525

Ass, Asian wild, see Equus hemionus; Somali wild, see Equus africanus somalicus

Ateles fusciceps robustus, breeding, John Ball Zoo, 4, 273–275

Ateles geoffroyi, grooming, kinship and food-sharing study, Centenario Zoo, 8, 526–527

Ateles paniscus, breeding, Amsterdam Zoo, 6, 400

Atelopus zeteki, Baltimore Zoo, 3, 201–202

Auckland Zoo, New Zealand, annual report 1999–2000, 5, 325–327

Auklet, least, see Aethia pusilla; parakeet, see Cyclorrhynchus psittacula; whiskered, see A. pygmaea

Babirusa, see Babyrousa babyrussa

Baboon, hamadryas, see Papio hamadryas

Babyrousa babyrussa, nursing behaviour, Bronx Zoo, 2, 141

Baconao Aquarium, Cuba, 1, 50

Balaena mysticetus, longevity, 2, 115

Baltimore Zoo, Maryland, U.S.A., Panamanian golden frog, 3, 201–202

Banham Zoo, U.K., breeding, falcons, 5, 334

Banteng, see Bos javanicus

Bararida Zoo, Barquisimeto, Venezuela, 3, 165–168

Basel Zoo, Switzerland,

arrival of bull African elephant, 2, 128

book on history, 1, 44, 53–54

Baton Rouge Zoo, Baker, Louisiana, U.S.A., rare domestic breeds, 3, 202

Bear, brown (grizzly), see Ursus arctos; polar, see Ursus maritimus; sloth, see Melursus ursinus; (Malayan) sun, see Helarctos malayanus

Bears in zoos, 6, 387

Beaver, European, see Castor fiber

Bee-eaters, see Merops spp.

Beekse Bergen Safari Park, The Netherlands,

faecal or urine hormone analysis, wart hog, white rhino and African elephant, 3, 202–203

mixed exhibit, African elephant and hamadryas baboon, 5, 345

Beijing Centre for Breeding Endangered Animals, China, 1, 26–27

Beijing Natural History Museum, China, 1, 25

Beijing Zoo, China, 1, 16–25

Belfast Zoo, Northern Ireland, U.K.,

breeding, mhorr gazelle, 5, 335

breeding, pied tamarin, 5, 335

ring-tailed lemur, free-ranging, 1, 63

Belize Zoo, Belize, Central America, husbandry and breeding, black howler monkey, 5, 335–336

Belo Horizonte Zoo, Brazil, sand-boxes as enrichment, red-winged tinamou, 8, 496–503

Berlin Zoo, Germany,

captive-breeding programme, narrow-striped mongoose, 2, 141–142

husbandry, tuatara, 4, 286

study of locomotor repertoire on land and in water, common hippo, 7, 477–478

Bioparco, Rome, Italy,

annual report 2000, 6, 394–395

management and breeding, African wild dog, 6, 360–366

Birds, deflighting, welfare implications, 8, 525

Birds International Inc., Diliman, Quezon City, The Philippines, 5, 336–337

Blair Drummond Safari Park, Stirling, Scotland, chimpanzee uses mobile phone, 7, 475

Bonobo, see Pan paniscus

Bos javanicus, breeding by in vitro embryo production, St Louis Zoo, 4, 277–278

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), possibly brought to U.K. by African antelope, 4, 261–262

Bristol Zoo, U.K.,

breeding and management, Javan and Hanuman langurs, 3, 149–153

education department, teachers' evaluation, 4, 240–245

new seal and penguin exhibit, 1, 63–64

Bronx Zoo (Wildlife Conservation Park), New York, U.S.A., 5, 337

efforts to breed Bulwer's pheasant, 2, 128; 4, 288–289

captive-breeding project, Kihansi spray toad, 6, 401

nursing behaviour, babirusa, 2, 141

Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.,

breeding, Micronesian kingfisher, 2, 137

hatching from cracked egg, sunbittern, 6, 412

Buceros bicornis, captive-breeding history, 2, 91–92

Buceros hydrocorax, captive-breeding history, 2, 92–93

Buceros rhinoceros, captive-breeding history, 2, 92

Buck, Frank, animal collector (book review), 6, 389–390

Bucorvus abyssinicus, captive-breeding history, 2, 83–84

Bucorvus leadbeateri, captive-breeding history, 2, 84

Bugeranus carunculatus, breeding, Wilhelma Zoo, 4, 279–280

Bunolagus monticularis, conservation, South Africa, 6, 392

Burgers' Zoo, Arnhem, The Netherlands,

annual report 2000, 2, 118–119

book on history, 1, 45–46

breeding, aardvark, 6, 401–402

rapid evolution, guppy, 8, 514–515

Bushmeat, campaign against, 2, 113–114

Bustard, houbara, see Chlamydotis [undulata] macqueenii

Calgary Zoo, Alberta, Canada, breeding, Vancouver Island marmot, 1, 64

Callicebus cupreus, breeding, Vallée des Singes, 8, 524

Callimico goeldii, genetics and taxonomy, 5, 355

Callitrichids, feeding gum arabic, Jersey Zoo, 6, 415–416

Cameron Park Zoo, Waco, Texas, U.S.A., research and collection, South American water snake, 3, 203–204

Canis lupus, C. l. baileyi, C. rufus, reintroduction, U.S.A., 7, 450–451

Capercaillie, see Tetrao urogallus

Capra ibex nubiana, captive breeding and release, Jordan, 5, 321

Capreolus capreolus, reintroduction, Jordan, 5, 321

Caracal, see Caracal caracal

Caracal caracal, husbandry and breeding, Ostrava Zoo, 7, 479

Caretta caretta, breeding by captive-hatched female, Himeji City Aquarium, 8, 519–520

Caricuao Zoo, Caracas, Venezuela, 3, 161–162

Castor fiber, proposed reintroduction, Scotland, 3, 213–214

Catagonus wagneri, captive breeding and release, 5, 318–319

Centenario Zoo, Mérida Yucatán, Mexico, grooming, kinship and food-sharing study, black-handed spider monkey, 8, 526–527

Cepphus columba, breeding, Cincinnati Zoo, 8, 518

Ceratogymna atrata, captive-breeding history, 2, 99

Ceratogymna brevis, captive-breeding history, 2, 98

Ceratogymna bucinator, captive-breeding history, 2, 97–98

Ceratogymna elata, captive-breeding history, 2, 99

Ceratogymna subcylindricus, captive-breeding history, 2, 98

Ceratotherium simum,

faecal hormone analysis, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 3, 202–203

fatal fight between two males, Gladys Porter Zoo, 7, 464–465

Cervus alfredi, breeding, Rotterdam Zoo, 1, 69

Cetaceans, social behaviour (book review), 3, 194–196

Cheetah, see Acinonyx jubatus

Chester Zoo, U.K., National Elephant Centre, history, 3, 170–183

Chimpanzee, see Pan troglodytes

Chlamydotis [undulata] macqueenii,

pre-release survival assessment, 7, 480

wild mortality, 5, 348–349

Chrysocyon brachyurus,

captive status, 2, 130–131

nematode parasite, 2, 130

Chrysolophus pictus, C. amherstiae, hybridisation in captivity, 4, 262–263

Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A.,

breeding, least auklet, whiskered auklet and pigeon guillemot, 8, 518

hand-rearing wild-bred chicks, least auklet, 7, 478

habitat use and activity budget, gorilla, 2, 143–144

pregnancy and birth, Sumatran rhino, 2, 129–130; 5, 338; 7, 463–464

Cologne Zoo, breeding, marabou stork, 7, 478

Columbus Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A.,

black rhino dies at 49, 1, 64

habitat use and activity budget, gorilla, 2, 143–144

rehabilitation and release, Kemp's ridley turtle, 8, 518

Condor, California, see Gymnogyps californianus

Conger conger, release, Macduff Marine Aquarium, 6, 412

Conure, crimson-bellied, see Pyrrhura p. perlata

Copenhagen Zoo, Denmark, annual report 2000, 4, 264–267

Copsychus sechellarum, rat eradication to preserve, Frégate island, 7, 455–456

Corals, breeding, 6, 418; 8, 522–523

Crane, Siberian, see Grus leucogeranus; wattled, see Bugeranus carunculatus; whooping, see Grus americana

Crocodile, Orinoco, see Crocodylus intermedius; Philippine, see C. mindorensis; Siamese, see C. siamensis

Crocodiles, use for waste disposal, Colorado and Iceland, 7, 475

Crocodylus intermedius, Dallas World Aquarium, 1, 64–65

Crocodylus mindorensis, recovery plan, 5, 303–308

Crocodylus siamensis, reintroduction, Vietnam, 6, 392

Crocuta crocuta, Amersfoort Zoo, 6, 413–414

Cryptozoology, 7, 422–423

Cyclorrhynchus psittacula, breeding behaviour study, North Carolina Zoo, 8, 525

Dallas World Aquarium, Texas, U.S.A., Orinoco crocodile, 1, 64–65

Dallas Zoo, Texas, U.S.A.,

breeding, saddle-billed stork, 6, 412

common hippopotamus euthanased at 53 years old, 3, 209

Danmarks Akvarium, Charlottenlund, Denmark, 5, 338

Deer, Philippine spotted, see Cervus alfredi; roe, see Capreolus capreolus

Deer, phylogenetic relationships, 4, 288

Dendrolagus scottae, conservation project, Papua New Guinea, 7, 470–471

Denver Zoo, Colorado, U.S.A.,

annual report 2000, 6, 395–399

breeding, Egyptian plover, 1, 65–67

dietary study, Asian elephant, 8, 526

Dicerorhinus sumatrensis,

conservation, 4, 255–256

pregnancy and birth, Cincinnati Zoo, 2, 129–130; 5, 338; 7, 463–464

Diceros bicornis,

death at 49, Columbus Zoo, 1, 64

longevity, 1, 64

Disney's Animal Kingdom, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, U.S.A.,

claw trimming, Komodo dragon, 6, 402

visitor's report, 8, 484–495

Dog, African wild, see Lycaon pictus

Dolichotis patagonum, hand-rearing, Suffolk Wildlife Park, 3, 154–159

Dolphin, bottle-nosed, see Tursiops truncatus

Dove, rose-crowned fruit, see Ptilinopus regina

Dublin Zoo, Ireland, 5, 338–340

breeding, Chilean flamingo, 2, 138–139

Ducula spilorrhoa, research into seed dispersal role, Adelaide Zoo, 6, 400

Dugong, see Dugong dugon

Dugong dugon,

Sea World (Surfers Paradise), 5, 346

wild status, Australia, 4, 258–259

Duisburg Zoo, Germany, breeding, koala, 4, 260

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (Jersey Zoo), Channel Islands, U.K.,

breeding, lesser Antillean iguana, 4, 271

feeding gum arabic, callitrichids, 6, 415–416

Mallinson, Jeremy, retirement from directorship, 5, 347

new wetland habitat, 5, 340

St Lucia amazon, diet, 5, 350

Dvur Králové Zoo, Czech Republic,

breeding, common crowned pigeon, 4, 271–272

breeding, African wild dog, 4, 272

Eagle, Philippine (monkey-eating), see Pithecophaga jefferyi; white-tailed sea, see Haliaeetus albicilla

Eden Project, Cornwall, U.K., biological insect control, 8, 524

Edinburgh Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, waldrapp, 4, 272–273

egg yolk study, Hermann's tortoise, 5, 353–354

maned wolf, 2, 130–131

nesting behaviour, gentoo penguin, 6, 402–403

population management and diet, Arabian oryx, 5, 340–341


Bristol Zoo, teachers' evaluation, 4, 240–245

London Zoo, visit by biology and education undergraduates, 6, 368–376

Eel, conger, see Conger conger

El Pinar Zoo, Caracas, Venezuela, 3, 160–161

Elephant, African, see Loxodonta africana; Asian, see Elephas maximus

Elephant, hybrid, Chester Zoo, 3, 173–174


communication and vocalisation, 3, 213

dental and tusk problems in captivity, 7, 476

foot care, 2, 134–135

herpesviruses, 3, 216; 5, 353

history, Chester Zoo, 3, 170–183

tuberculosis in North America, 3, 214–215

ultrasound imaging, 3, 198–200, 211–212

Elephas maximus,

breeding, La Palmyre Zoo, 8, 520

breeding, Ramat-Gan Zoological Center, 5, 344

chemical communication, 3, 215–216

death of twin, Khao Kheow Open Zoo, 3, 204

demographic analysis, North America, 3, 219

departure following death of keeper, London Zoo, 8, 482–483

dietary study, Denver Zoo, 8, 526

foot care, Oregon Zoo, 2, 134–135

Gänserndorf Safaripark, 2, 131–132

introduction to existing group, Münster Zoo, 8, 527

rides for visitors, Taronga Zoo, 5, 347

Emmen Zoo, The Netherlands, banana-leaf tableware to be recycled as animal food, 7, 475

Encyclopedia of the World's Zoos (book review), 8, 512–513

Endangered Species Breeding Unit, Martin Mere, U.K., 6, 403

Environmental enrichment video library, Schönbrunn Zoo, 3, 200

Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis, breeding, Dallas Zoo, 6, 412

Equus africanus somalicus,

breeding, Réserve Africaine de Sigean, 3, 205

twin birth, stillborn, Tierpark Berlin, 7, 478

Equus grevyi, abortions, possibly stress-related, Marwell Zoological Park, 4, 268

Equus hemionus,

reintroduction, Jordan, 5, 321

twin births, 7, 478

Eulamprus tympanum, temperature-dependent sex determination, 6, 393

Eunectes murinus, breeding, Singapore Zoo, 3, 209

Eunymphicus cornutus, breeding, San Diego Zoo, 3, 207

Eurypyga helias, hatching from cracked egg, Brookfield Zoo, 6, 412

Falco spp., breeding, Banham Zoo, 5, 334

Falcons, see Falco spp.

Faust, Richard (1927–2000), obituary, 4, 222–223

Ferret, black-footed, see Mustela nigripes

Flamingo, Chilean, see Phoenicopterus chilensis

Florio, Pier Lorenzo (1925–1999), obituary, 6, 358

Foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, U.K., 3, 198

Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, Indiana, U.S.A.,

fostering, African penguin, 8, 524

use of vertical space, orang-utan, 2, 139

Fort Worth Zoo, Texas, U.S.A.,

breeding, quince monitor, 6, 403–404

breeding, Timor python, 1, 67–68

Fox, swift, see Vulpes velox

Frankfurt Zoo, Germany, breeding, bonobo, 5, 341–342

Frog, common, see Rana temporaria; Panamanian golden, see Atelopus zeteki

Frogs, venom, potential medical uses, 7, 462

Fuengirola Zoo, Málaga, Spain, mixed exhibit, pygmy hippo and mandrill, 6, 404

Gänserndorf Safaripark, Austria, Asian elephant, 2, 131–132

Gavialis gangeticus, mixed exhibit with Indian muntjac, St Augustine Alligator Farm, 1, 70–71

Gazella dama mhorr, breeding, Belfast Zoo, 5, 335

Gazella leptoceros, reintroduction, Jordan, 5, 321

Gazelle, mhorr, see Gazella dama mhorr; mountain (Arabian), see G. gazella; rhim, see G. leptoceros

Geronticus eremita,

breeding, Edinburgh Zoo, 4, 272–273

free-flying group, Austria, 4, 290–291

Gharial, see Gavialis gangeticus

Gibbon, Javan grey (silvery), see Hylobates moloch

Gila monster, see Heloderma suspectum

Giraffa camelopardalis,

captive population management, 6, 418

crush as management aid, Rotterdam Zoo, 6, 418–419

dietary fibre and behaviour, Paignton Zoo, 6, 413

dietary study, Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, 8, 525

Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa, breeding, Tisch Family Zoo, 6, 409

Giraffe, see Giraffa camelopardalis; Cape, see G. c. giraffa

Gladys Porter Zoo, Brownsville, Texas, U.S.A., fatal fight between two male white rhinos, 7, 464–465

Gorilla, Cross River, see Gorilla gorilla diehli; western lowland, see Gorilla g. gorilla

Gorilla gorilla diehli, conservation, Nigeria, 5, 320–321

Gorilla g. gorilla,

behaviour in bachelor groups, Zoo Atlanta and Santa Barbara Zoo, 4, 290

dietary research, Amsterdam Zoo, 4, 281

habitat use and activity budget, Cincinnati and Columbus Zoos, 2, 143–144

infant drowned by Cairo Airport vets, 7, 460

Koko, the `signing gorilla', 5, 347

social relationships, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 6, 416–417

vegetables grown in enclosure, Longleat Safari Park, 7, 475

Görlitz Zoo, Germany, feeding behaviour and activity, red panda, 6, 415

Goura cristata, breeding, Dvur Králové Zoo, 4, 272

Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary, Barbados, management, St Vincent amazon, 7 424–429

Grouse, black, see Tetrao tetrix

Grus americana, artificial insemination and paternity assignment, 8, 525

Grus leucogeranus, breeding by artificial insemination, Tierpark Berlin, 7, 474

Guan, common piping, see Pipile cumanensis

Guillemot, common, see Uria aalge; pigeon, see Cepphus columba

Guppy, see Poecilia reticulata

Gymnogyps californianus, genetic management, 3, 215

Gyps spp., fatal epidemic, 4, 257

Hagenbeck Animal Park (Tierpark Hagenbeck), Hamburg, Germany, annual report 2000, 2, 126–127

Halcyon cinnamomina, breeding, Brookfield Zoo, 2, 137

Haliaeetus albicilla, breeding, Nikolaev Zoo, 4, 280

Handbook of the Birds of the World, 4, 248–250

Healesville Sanctuary, Victoria, Australia,

breeding, brush-tailed phascogale, 1, 68

breeding, platypus, 4, 273

deaths from zinc poisoning, orange-bellied parrot, 7, 465

release, orange-bellied parrot, 8, 518–519

veterinary ophthalmologist, 6, 404–405

Helarctos malayanus, breeding, Tama Zoo, 3, 207–208

Helicops angulatus, research and collection, Cameron Park Zoo, 3, 203–204

Heloderma suspectum, breeding, Los Angeles Zoo, 6, 407

Heuvelmans, Bernard (1916–2001), obituary, 7, 422–423

Hexaprotodon liberiensis,

gestation length and birth weight in captivity, 3, 220

mixed exhibit with mandrill, Fuengirola Zoo, 6, 404

Highland Wildlife Park, Kincraig, Scotland, U.K., breeding, capercaillie and black grouse, 7, 465–467

Himeji City Aquarium, Japan, breeding by captive-hatched female, loggerhead turtle, 8, 519–520

Hippocampus sp., captive diet, 6, 414

Hippopotamus, common, see Hippopotamus amphibius; pygmy, see Hexaprotodon liberiensis

Hippopotamus amphibius

euthanased at 53 years old, Dallas Zoo, 3, 209

new exhibit, Schönbrunn Zoo, 4, 235–239

study of locomotor repertoire on land and in water, Berlin Zoo, 7, 477–478

History, zoo, 1, 42–48

Hog, red river, see Potamochoerus porcus

Honolulu Zoo, Hawaii, U.S.A., breeding, Komodo dragon, 2, 132

Hornbill, Abyssinian (northern) ground, see Bucorvus abyssinicus; African crowned, see Tockus alboterminatus; African grey, see Tockus nasutus; Asian pied, see Anthracoceros a. albirostris; black-casqued, see Ceratogymna atrata; Blyth's (Papuan wreathed), see Aceros plicatus; eastern yellow-billed, see Tockus flavirostris; great Indian, see Buceros bicornis; grey-cheeked, see Ceratogymna subcylindricus; Indian pied, see Anthracoceros coronatus; Jackson's, see Tockus deckeni jacksoni; Malayan black, see Anthracoceros malayanus; red-billed, see Tockus erythrorhynchus; southern ground, see Bucorvus leadbeateri; rhinoceros, see Buceros rhinoceros; rufous, see Buceros hydrocorax; silvery-cheeked, see Ceratogymna brevis; southern yellow-billed, see Tockus leucomelas; Sulawesi wrinkled, see Aceros cassidix; Sunda pied, see Anthracoceros albirostris convexus; Sunda wrinkled, see Aceros corrugatus; tarictic, see Penelopides spp.; trumpeter, see Ceratogymna bucinator; Von der Decken's, see Tockus d. deckeni; white-crowned, see Aceros comatus; wreathed, see Aceros undulatus; writhe-billed, see Aceros leucocephalus; yellow-casqued, see Ceratogymna elata

Hornbills in captivity, 2, 78–103

Howletts Wild Animal Park, U.K.,

annual report 1999–2000, 2, 119–125

first captive breeding, grizzled leaf monkey, 2, 120

Hydrosaurus spp., conservation, the Philippines, 5, 319–320

Hyena, spotted, see Crocuta crocuta

Hylobates moloch, breeding, Perth Zoo, 2, 135

Ibex, Nubian, see Capra ibex nubiana

Ibis, crested, see Nipponia nippon

Iguana, lesser Antillean, see Iguana delicatissima

Iguana delicatissima, breeding, Jersey Zoo, 4, 271

International Zoo News, history and 50th anniversary, 1, 2–15.

Internet, ZooLex Zoo Design website, 7, 438–443

IUCN Red List categories of threat, captive status ignored, 5, 294

Jaguar, see Panthera onca

Japan, columbids and psittacines in zoos, 1, 32–410

John Ball Zoo, Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A.,

awards to in situ conservation projects, 6, 405–406

management and breeding, brown-headed spider monkey, 4, 273–275

John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., bonnethead shark, 6, 406–407

Kachuga tecta, breeding, Sayaji Baug Zoo, 7, 480

Kagu, see Rhynochetos jubatus

Kamogawa Sea World, Japan, breeding, killer whale, 2, 137

Kangaroo, Scott's tree, see Dendrolagus scottae

Khao Kheow Open Zoo, Chon Buri, Thailand, death of Asian elephant twin, 3, 204

Kingfisher, Micronesian, see Halcyon cinnamomina

Kiwis, see Apteryx spp.

Knoxville Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A., breeding, red panda, 6, 412

Koala, see Phascolarctos cinereus

Komodo dragon, see Varanus komodoensis

Kudu, lesser, see Tragelaphus imberbis

La Palmyre Zoo, Les Mathes, France, breeding, Asian elephant, 8, 520

Langur, Hanuman, see Semnopithecus entellus; Javan (silver), see Trachypithecus auratus; red-shanked douc, see Pygathrix nemaeus

Langurs, douc, see Pygathrix spp.

Las Delicias Zoo, Maracay, Venezuela, 3, 162–163

Leipzig Zoo, Germany, new great ape habitat (`Pongoland'), 5, 342

Lemur, ring-tailed, see Lemur catta; ruffed, see Varecia variegata

Lemur catta, free-ranging, Belfast Zoo, 1, 63

Leontopithecus chrysomelas, contraceptive methods, 4, 282–283

Leontopithecus chrysopygus, reintroduction, 5, 354–355

Leontopithecus rosalia, reintroduction, 4, 256–257

Leopard, clouded, see Neofelis nebulosa

Leopardus pardalis, poisoning by eating contaminated pigeons, Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, 2, 121

Lepidochelys kempii,

conservation, Texas, 4, 259

rehabilitation and release, Columbus Zoo, 8, 518

Leptoptilos crumeniferus, breeding, Cologne Zoo, 7, 478

Leucopsar rothschildi, killed by laughing thrushes, Milwaukee County Zoo, 2, 132–133

Lisbon Zoo, Portugal, breeding, koala, 4, 260–261

Lizard, prehensile-tailed alligator, see Abronia graminea

Lizards, sailfin, see Hydrosaurus spp.

London Zoo, U.K.,

departure of elephants following death of keeper, 8, 482–483

visit by biology and education undergraduates, 6, 368–376


black rhino, 1, 64

bowhead whale, 2, 115

Longleat Safari Park, U.K., vegetables grown in gorilla enclosure, 7, 475

Lontra canadensis, husbandry, European zoos, 4, 224–234

Lophura bulweri, efforts to breed, Bronx Zoo, 2, 128

Lophura edwardsi, L. hatinhensis and L. imperialis, taxonomy, 7, 456–457

Loris, pygmy, see Nycticebus pygmaeus; slow, see N. coucang

Loro Parque, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain,

breeding, thick-billed parrot, 4, 275

growth rates, hand-reared and parent-reared red-fronted macaw and crimson-bellied conure, 7, 467

Los Angeles Zoo, California, U.S.A., breeding, Gila monster, 6, 407

Loxodonta africana,

arrival of bull, Basel Zoo, 2, 128

breeding by artificial insemination, Schönbrunn Zoo, 7, 424–429

breeding, Parque de la Naturaleza de Cabarceno, 5, 343–344; 8, 520–521

breeding, Ramat-Gan Zoological Center, 5, 344

breeding, Tierpark Berlin, 4, 280

mixed exhibit with hamadryas baboon, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 5, 345

population projections, North America, 3, 215

Tama Zoo, 6, 408–409

urine hormone analysis, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 3, 202–203

Lycaon pictus,

breeding, Dvur Králové Zoo, 4, 272

importance of pack size, 5, 349

management and breeding, Bioparco, Rome, 6, 360–366

Lynx, European, see Lynx lynx

Lynx lynx,

reintroduction, Poland, 2, 138

reproductive study, Ostrava Zoo, 3, 218

Macaw, blue-and-yellow, see Ara ararauna; Lear's, see Anodorhynchus leari; red-fronted, see Ara rubrogenys

Macduff Marine Aquarium, release, conger eel, 6, 412

Madrid Zoo, Spain, frozen semen bank, 2, 132

Magdeburg Zoo, Germany, book on history, 1, 45–46

Magpie-robin, Seychelles, see Copsychus sechellarum

Mallinson, Jeremy, retirement from directorship, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, 5, 347

Mandrill, see Mandrillus sphinx

Mandrillus sphinx,

breeding and husbandry, Southport Zoo, 5, 296–302

mixed exhibit with pygmy hippo, Fuengirola Zoo, 6, 404

Mara, see Dolichotis patagonum

Marmosets, see Callitrichids

Marmot, Vancouver Island, see Marmota vancouverensis

Marmota vancouverensis, breeding, Calgary Zoo, 1, 64

Marwell Zoological Park, U.K.,

annual report 2000, 4, 267–268

abortions, possibly stress-related,, Grevy‘s zebra, 4, 268

Melbourne Zoo, Victoria, Australia, helps education and reptile departments, Saigon Zoo, 3, 206–207

Melursus ursinus, captive status, Europe, 5, 322–323

Merops spp., breeding, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 5, 345–346

Miami Metrozoo, Florida, U.S.A., new aviary plan, 4, 275–276

Milwaukee County Zoo, Wisconsin, U.S.A., Bali mynah killed by laughing thrushes, 2, 132–133

Mink, European, see Mustela lutreola

Mixed exhibit,

African elephant and hamadryas baboon, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 5, 345

gharial and Indian muntjac, St Augustine Alligator Farm, 1, 70–71

pygmy hippo and mandrill, Fuengirola Zoo, 6, 404

Mongoose, narrow-striped, see Mungotictis decemlineata

Monitor, quince, see Varanus melinus

Monkey, black (Mexican) howler, see Alouatta pigra; black-handed spider, see Ateles geoffroyi; brown-headed spider, see Ateles fusciceps robustus; Goeldi's, see Callimico goeldii; grizzled leaf, see Presbytis comata; red titi, see Callicebus cupreus; red-faced black spider, see Ateles paniscus

Moscow Zoo, Russia,

giant pandas arrive on loan, 7, 468

operation to remove tusks, walrus, 3, 204–205

Mungotictis decemlineata, captive-breeding programme, Berlin and Antananarivo Zoos, 2, 141–142

Münster Zoo (Allwetterzoo), Germany,

history (book review), 7, 447–449

introduction to existing group, Asian elephant, 8, 527

Muntiacus muntjak, mixed exhibit with gharial, St Augustine Alligator Farm, 1, 70–71

Muntjac, Indian, see Muntiacus muntjak

Museums, collaboration with zoos, 7, 458–459

Mustela lutreola, phylogenetic study, 4, 282

Mustela nigripes, reproductive failure, 4, 291–292

Mynah, Bali, see Leucopsar rothschildi

Nanhaizi Milu Park, Beijing, China, 1, 27–29

National Zoo, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 3, 168–169

National Zoo, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., giant Pacific octopus, 8, 520

Nectophrynoides asperginis, captive-breeding project, Bronx Zoo, 6, 401

Neofelis nebulosa, breeding, Santago Rare Leopard Project, 2, 136–137

Neophema chrysogaster,

deaths from zinc poisoning, Healesville Sanctuary, 7, 465

release, Tasmania, 8, 518–519

New York Aquarium, U.S.A., self-recognition, bottle-nosed dolphin, 5, 323–324

Newquay Zoo, U.K., annual report 2000, 2, 125–126

Newt, red-spotted, see Notophthalmus sp.

Nikolaev Zoo, Ukraine, breeding, white-tailed sea eagle, 4, 280

Nipponia nippon, breeding, Sado Crested Ibis Conservation Centre, 3, 206

Nomenclature, zoological (book reviews), 3, 191–192; 5, 314–316

Nordhorn Zoo, Germany, history (book review), 7, 449

North Carolina Zoo, Asheboro, North Carolina, U.S.A., breeding behaviour study, parakeet auklet, 8, 525

Notophthalmus sp., magnetic homing, 6, 393

Nuremberg (Nürnberg) Zoo, Germany, king cheetah born, 2, 133–134

Nycticebus coucang, N. pygmaeus, in and ex situ research, San Diego Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species (CRES), 6, 391–392

Ocelot, see Leopardus pardalis

Octopus dofleini, U.S. National Zoo, 8, 520

Octopus, giant Pacific, see Octopus dofleini

Odobenus rosmarus, operation to remove tusks, Moscow Zoo, 3, 204–205; 5, 347

Okapi, see Okapia johnstoni

Okapia johnstoni,

breeding, Rotterdam Zoo, 8, 522

history in captivity, 8, 504–510

weight data, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 6, 368–376

Oklahoma City Zoo, Oklahoma, U.S.A., death from bacterial infection, bottle-nosed dolphin, 1, 68–69

Orang-utan, see Pongo pygmaeus

Orcinus orca, breeding, Kamogawa Sea World, 2, 137

Oregon Zoo, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., elephant foot care, 2, 134–135

Ornithorhynchus anatinus, breeding, Healesville Sanctuary, 4, 273

Orycteropus afer, breeding, Burgers' Zoo, 6, 401–402

Oryx, Arabian, see Oryx leucoryx

Oryx leucoryx,

in situ management strategy, 7, 479

population management and diet, Edinburgh Zoo, 5, 340–341

reintroduced, inbreeding and outbreeding depression, 3, 214

reintroduction, Jordan, 5, 321

Ostrava Zoo, Czech Republic,

husbandry and breeding, caracal, 7, 479

reproductive study, European lynx, 3, 218

Ostrich, see Struthio camelus

Otter, North American river, see Lontra canadensis

Ovis ammon, in situ research, Mongolia, 4, 257–258

Ovis aries, memory and recognition, 8, 515–516

Ovis canadensis, inbreeding depression study, 8, 525–526

Owl, ashy-faced, see Tyto glaucops

Paignton Zoo, U.K., dietary fibre and behaviour, giraffe, 6, 413

Pan paniscus, breeding, Frankfurt Zoo, 5, 341–342

Pan troglodytes,

use of mobile phone, Blair Drummond Safari Park, 7, 475

videotapes as environmental enrichment, 4, 281–282

wild, sharing meat, 7, 462

Panda, giant, see Ailuropoda melanoleuca; red, see Ailurus fulgens

Panthera onca, taxonomy, 7, 451–452

Panthera tigris,

conservation, 2, 106–107

only three subspecies, 3, 212–213

roar, acoustic analysis, 5, 323

Pantholops hodgsoni, conservation, 5, 317–318

Papio hamadryas, mixed exhibit with African elephant, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 5, 345

Paradoxornis, possible new species discovered naturalized in Italy, 8, 514

Parakeet, horned, see Eunymphicus cornutus; orange-bellied, see Neophema chrysogaster

Parque de la Naturaleza de Cabarceno, Spain, breeding, African elephant, 5, 343–344; 8, 520–521

Parque del Este `Romulo Betancourt', Caracas, Venezuela, 3, 162

Parrot, orange-bellied, see Neophema chrysogaster; thick-billed, see Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha

Parrotbill, see Paradoxornis


in Japanese zoos, 1, 32–41

proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), 5, 342–343

Peccary, Chacoan (giant), see Catagonus wagneri

Penelopides spp., captive-breeding history, 2, 93–95

Penguin, black-footed (African), see Spheniscus demersus; gentoo, see Pygoscelis papua; Humboldt's, see Spheniscus humboldti; king, see Aptenodytes patagonicus

Perth Zoo, Western Australia,

breeding, silvery gibbon, 2, 135

change from fresh to salt water, penguin pool, 4, 276–277

Petrogale xanthopus, wild-caught, Adelaide Zoo, 3, 201

Phacochoerus aethiopicus, faecal hormone analysis, Beekse Bergen Safari Park, 3, 202–203

Phascogale, brush-tailed, see Phascogale tapoatafa

Phascogale tapoatafa,

breeding, Healesville Sanctuary, 1, 68

search for wild individuals, Adelaide Zoo, 7, 463

Phascolarctos cinereus,

breeding, Duisburg and Lisbon Zoos, 4, 260–261

stolen from San Francisco Zoo, 2, 137

Pheasant, Bulwer's, see Lophura bulweri; Edwards's, see L. edwardsi; golden, see Chrysolophus pictus; Ijima's copper, see Syrmaticus soemmerringii ijimae; imperial, see L. imperialis; Lady Amherst's, see C. amherstiae; Vietnamese, see L. hatinhensis

Philadelphia Zoo, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., breeding, rare chelonians, 3, 205

Phoenicopterus chilensis,

breeding, Dublin Zoo, 2, 138–139

husbandry and breeding, Réserve Africaine de Sigean, 6, 407–408

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, breeding, Aquarium of the Pacific, 6, 400

Pigeon, common crowned, see Goura cristata; Torres Strait, see Ducula spilorrhoa

Pigeons in Japanese zoos, 1, 32–41

Pipile cumanensis, breeding by artificial insemination, St Louis Zoo, 1, 71; 2, 135–136

Pithecophaga jefferyi, history in captivity, 1, 15; 2, 104

Platalea minor, hand-rearing, Tama Zoo, 4, 279

Platypus, see Ornithorhynchus anatinus

Plover, Egyptian, see Pluvianus aegyptius

Pluvianus aegyptius, breeding, Denver Zoo, 1, 65–67

Poecilia reticulata, rapid evolution, Burgers' Zoo, 8, 514–515

Poisonous animals (book reviews), 7, 446–447

Pongo pygmaeus,

new exhibit, Münster Zoo, 7, 468–469

touchscreen enrichment apparatus, Sedgwick County Zoo, 7, 472

use of vertical space, Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, 2, 139

Poole, Trevor (1931–2001), obituary, 8, 514

Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, U.K.,

annual report 1999–2000, 2, 119–125

poisoning by eating contaminated pigeons, ocelot, 2, 121

Potamochoerus porcus, breeding, Rotterdam Zoo, 8, 522

Presbytis comata, first captive breeding, Howletts Wild Animal Park, 2, 120

Primates, West African, conservation project, 7, 452–453

Proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), 5, 342–343

Pseudonovibos spiralis, discovered not to exist, 2, 117

Pseudorca crassidens, Sea World (Surfers Paradise), 5, 346

Pterocles exustus, European zoos, 7, 459–460

Ptilinopus regina, research into foster-rearing, Adelaide Zoo, 6, 400

Pygathrix nemaeus, breeding, San Diego Zoo, 6, 412

Pygathrix spp., molecular study, 3, 216–217

Pygoscelis papua, nesting behaviour, Edinburgh Zoo, 6, 402–403

Pyrrhura p. perlata, growth rates, hand-reared and parent-reared, Loro Parque, 7, 467

Python, Timor, see Python timorensis

Python timorensis, breeding, Fort Worth Zoo, 1, 67–68

Rabbit, riverine, see Bunolagus monticularis

Racer, Antiguan (lizard), see Alsophis antiguae; racers, see Alsophis spp.

Rainforest Habitat, Lae, Papua New Guinea, 7, 470–471

Ramat-Gan Zoological Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, breeding, Asian and African elephants, 5, 344

Ramphotyphlops braminus, breeding, Ueno Zoo, 7, 474

Rana temporaria, return to birthplace, Aquarium of the Lakes, 5, 347

Rat, brown, see Rattus rattus

Rattus rattus, eradication from Frégate to preserve Seychelles magpie-robin, 7, 455–456

Reintroduction or release,

Arabian oryx, Jordan, 5, 321

Arabian oryx, Oman, 3, 214

Asian wild ass, Jordan, 5, 321

black lion tamarin, Brazil, 5, 354–355

Chacoan peccary, Paraguay, 5, 318–319

conger eel, Scotland, 6, 412

European beaver, Scotland, 3, 213–214

European lynx, Poland, 2, 138

golden lion tamarin, Brazil, 4, 256–257

houbara bustard, Saudi Arabia, 7, 480

Kemp's ridley turtle, U.S.A., 8, 518

mountain gazelle, Saudi Arabia, 5, 349

Nubian ibex, Jordan, 5, 321

orange-bellied parrot, Tasmania, 8, 518–519

ostrich, Jordan, 5, 321

rhim gazelle, Jordan, 5, 321

roe deer, Jordan, 5, 321

Siamese crocodile, Vietnam, 6, 392

swift fox, Canada, 2, 112–113

wolves (gray, Mexican and red), U.S.A., 7, 450–451

Réserve Africaine de Sigean, France,

breeding, Somali wild ass, 3, 205

husbandry and breeding, Chilean flamingo, 6, 407–408

Reykjavik Farm Zoo, Iceland, 4, 277

Rheine Zoo (Naturzoo), Germany, annual report 2000, 4, 268–270

Rhinoceros, black, see Diceros bicornis; Sumatran, see Dicerorhinus sumatrensis; white, see Ceratotherium simum

Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha, breeding, Loro Parque, 4, 275

Rhynchotus rufescens, sand-boxes as enrichment, Belo Horizonte Zoo, 8, 496–503

Rhynochetos jubatus, breeding, San Diego Zoo, 3, 207

Rio de Janeiro Primate Center, Brazil, 8, 521–522

Riverbanks Zoo, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A., 1, 69; 3, 205–206; 5, 344–345; 7, 471


conservation priorities, 5, 348

subterranean (book review), 3, 193–194

Rostock Zoo, Germany, new South America House, 7, 471–472

Rotterdam Zoo, The Netherlands,

annual report 2000, 5, 327–331

breeding, Asian elephant, 1, 69

breeding, okapi, 8, 522

breeding, Philippine spotted deer, 1, 69

breeding, red river hog, 8, 522

crush as management aid, giraffe, 6, 418–419

king penguin, 8, 523

`Oceanium', 1, 70

Sado Crested Ibis Conservation Centre, Japan, breeding, crested ibis, 3, 206

Saguinus bicolor, breeding, Belfast Zoo, 5, 335

Saigon Zoo, Vietnam, help from Melbourne Zoo for education and reptile departments, 3, 206–207

St Augustine Alligator Farm and Zoological Park, Florida, U.S.A.,

breeding, Siamese crocodile, 1, 71

mixed exhibit, gharial and Indian muntjac, 1, 70–71

St Catherine's Island Wildlife Survival Center (Wildlife Conservation Society), Georgia, U.S.A., `freemartin' lesser kudu, 8, 523–524

St Louis Zoo, Missouri, U.S.A.,

breeding by artificial insemination, common piping guan, 1, 71

breeding by in vitro embryo production, addax and banteng, 4, 277–278

San Diego Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species (CRES),

chromosome analysis, 7, 460–461

in and ex situ research, pygmy and slow lorises, 6, 391–392

San Diego Wild Animal Park, California, U.S.A.,

breeding, African open-bill stork, 2, 140–141

breeding, bee-eaters (Merops spp.), 5, 345–346

seed bank, endangered south Californian plants, 1, 71–72

social relationships, gorilla, 6, 416–417

weight data, okapi, 6, 368–376

San Diego Zoo, California, U.S.A.,

`bread', giant panda, 5, 323

breeding, horned parakeet, 3, 207

breeding, kagu, 3, 207

breeding, red-shanked douc langur, 6, 412

hand-rearing database, 4, 278–279

San Francisco Zoo, California, U.S.A., koalas stolen, 2, 137

Sandgrouse, chestnut-bellied, see Pterocles exustus

Santa Barbara Zoo, California, U.S.A., gorilla, behaviour in bachelor group, 4, 290

Santago Rare Leopard Project, Welwyn, U.K., breeding, clouded leopard, 2, 136–137

Santiago Zoo, Cuba, 1, 51

Sayaji Baug Zoo, Vadodara, Gujarat, India, breeding, Indian roofed turtle, 7, 480

Schönbrunn Zoo, Vienna, Austria,

artificial insemination, African elephant, 7, 424–429

books on history, 1, 42–44

environmental enrichment video library, 3, 200

new exhibit, common hippo, 4, 235–239

Sea dragon, weedy, see Phyllopteryx taeniolatus

Sea World, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, false killer whale and dugong, 5, 346

Seahorses, see Hippocampus sp.

Sedgwick County Zoo, Wichita, Kansas, U.S.A.,

breeding, prehensile-tailed alligator lizard, 6, 408

touchscreen enrichment apparatus, orang-utan and grizzly bear, 7, 472

Semnopithecus entellus, breeding and management, Bristol Zoo, 3, 149–153

Shark, bonnethead, see Sphyrna tiburo

Sheep, bighorn, see Ovis canadensis; domestic, see O. aries

Singapore Zoo, breeding, anaconda, 3, 209

Skink, viviparous (no English name), see Eulamprus tympanum

Smithsonian Conservation Research Center, Front Royal, Virginia, U.S.A., proposed closure, 3, 198

Snake, Brahminy blind (flowerpot snake), see Ramphotyphlops braminus; South American water, see Helicops angulatus

South Lakes Wild Animal Park, U.K., 7, 472–473

Southport Zoo and Conservation Trust, Merseyside, U.K.,

breeding and husbandry, mandrill, 5, 296–302

fined for holding endangered species without licence, 6, 358–359

Spheniscus demersus, fostering, Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, 8, 524

Spheniscus humboldti, Japan, 4, 262

Sphenodon punctatus, husbandry, Berlin Zoo, 4, 286

Sphyrna tiburo, John G. Shedd Aquarium, 6, 406–407

Spoonbill, black-faced, see Platalea minor

Stork, African open-bill, see Anastomus lamelligerus; marabou, see Leptoptilos crumeniferus; saddle-billed, see Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis

Struthio camelus, reintroduction, Jordan, 5, 321

Suffolk Wildlife Park, Kessingland, U.K., hand-rearing, mara, 3, 154–159

Sunbittern, see Eurypyga helias

Surplus animals, disposal, 2, 104; 4, 246; 6, 387

Syrmaticus soemmerringii ijimae, artificial insemination, Ueno Zoo, 6, 410

Tama Zoo, Tokyo, Japan,

African elephant, 6, 408–409

breeding, Malayan sun bear, 3, 207–208

hand-rearing, black-faced spoonbill, 4, 279

Tamarin, black lion, see Leontopithecus chrysopygus; golden-headed lion, see Leontopithecus chrysomelas; golden lion, see L. rosalia; pied, see Saguinus bicolor

Tamarins, see Callitrichids

Taronga Zoo, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,

brings back elephant rides, 5, 347

new exhibit, `Creatures of the Wollemi', 3, 208–209


book review, 3, 189–191

mammal, implications for conservation, 3, 147–148

Testudo graeca, unexpectedly high population growth rate, 3, 210–211

Testudo hermanni, egg yolk study, Edinburgh Zoo, 5, 353–354

Tetrao tetrix, breeding, Highland Wildlife Park, 7, 465–467

Tetrao urogallus, breeding, Highland Wildlife Park, 7, 465–467

Thomas, Warren D. (1930–2001), obituary, 3, 146

Thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), see Thylacinus cynocephalus

Thylacinus cynocephalus, 5, 310–312

Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, Germany,

breeding, African elephant, 4, 280

breeding by artificial insemination, Siberian crane, 7, 474

new African primate house, 1, 72; 3, 209

twin birth, stillborn, Somali wild ass, 7, 478

Tiger, see Panthera tigris

Tinamou, red-winged, see Rhynchotus rufescens

Tisch Family Zoo, Jerusalem, Israel, breeding, Cape giraffe, 6, 409

Toad, Kihansi spray, see Nectophrynoides asperginis

Tockus alboterminatus, captive-breeding history, 2, 84–85; 3, 184

Tockus d. deckeni, captive-breeding history, 2, 88

Tockus deckeni jacksoni, captive-breeding history, 2, 88

Tockus erythrorhynchus, captive-breeding history, 2, 86

Tockus flavirostris, captive-breeding history, 2, 87

Tockus leucomelas, captive-breeding history, 2, 87–88

Tockus nasutus, captive-breeding history, 2, 85–86

Tokyo Sea Life Park, Japan, breeding, common guillemot, 6, 409–410

Tortoise, Hermann's, see Testudo hermanni; spur-thighed, see T. graeca

Trachypithecus auratus, breeding and management, Bristol Zoo, 3, 149–153

Tragelaphus imberbis, freemartin, St Catherine's Island Wildlife Survival Center, 8, 523–524

Tuatara, see Sphenodon punctatus

Tursiops truncatus,

death from bacterial infection, Oklahoma City Zoo, 1, 68–69

self-recognition, New York Aquarium, 5, 323–324

Turtle, Indian roofed, see Kachuga tecta; Kemp's ridley, see Lepidochelys kempii; loggerhead, see Caretta caretta

Tyto glaucops, breeding, World Owl Trust, 7, 469–470

Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, Japan,

breeding, Brahminy blind snake, 7, 474

breeding by artificial insemination, Ijima's copper pheasant, 6, 410

Uria aalge, breeding, Tokyo Sea Life Park, 6, 409–410

Ursus arctos, touchscreen enrichment apparatus, Sedgwick County Zoo, 7, 472

Ursus maritimus, management and behaviour (book review), 5, 313–314

Vallée des Singes, Romagne, France, breeding, red titi monkey, 8, 524

Varanus komodoensis,

breeding, Honolulu Zoo, 2, 132

blood values and captive health, 4, 284–285

claw trimming, Disney's Animal Kingdom, 6, 402

Varanus melinus, breeding, Fort Worth Zoo, 6, 403–404

Varecia variegata, obesity and captive diet, 8, 527

Vulpes velox, captive breeding and release, 2, 112–113

Vultures, see Gyps spp.

Waldrapp, see Geronticus eremita

Wallaby, yellow-footed rock, see Petrogale xanthopus

Walsrode Bird Park, Germany, annual report 2000, 5, 332–333

Walrus, see Odobenus rosmarus

Wart hog, see Phacochoerus aethiopicus

Whale, bowhead, see Balaena mysticetus; false killer, see Pseudorca crassidens; killer, see Orcinus orca

Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, U.K., dietary study, giraffe, 8, 525

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Martin Mere, U.K. 6, 410

Wilhelma Zoo, Stuttgart, Germany,

breeding, wattled crane, 4, 279–280; 6, 410–411

Woburn Safari Park, U.K., maize maze, 6, 412

Wolf, Joseph (1820–1899), animal painter, 5, 311–312

Wolf, gray, see Canis lupus; maned, see Chrysocyon brachyurus; Mexican, see C. l. baileyi; red, see C. l. rufus

World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), director appointed, 3, 184; 4, 260

World Owl Trust, Muncaster Castle, Cumbria, U.K., breeding, ashy-faced owl, 7, 469–470

York's Wild Kingdom, Maine, U.S.A., environmental enrichment, blue-and-yellow macaw, 6, 411–412

Zebra, Grevy‘s, see Equus grevyi

Zoo Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., gorilla, behaviour in bachelor group, 4, 290

Zoo Outreach Organisation, India, greeting cards, 2, 116

ZooLex Zoo Design website, 7, 438–443

Zoonoses, 3, 217


animals' reactions to visitors, 4, 285–286

Chinese, 1, 16–30

conservation role, 2, 74–77

Cuban, 1, 49–52

design website, 7, 438–443

Dominican Republic, 3, 168–169

future role, 4, 250–252

history, 1, 42–48, 53–55; 3, 187–189

Venezuelan, 3, 160–168

Zürich Zoo, Switzerland, book on history, 1, 44–45, 53–54