International Zoo News Vol. 49/8 (No. 321) December 2002


Cultural Icons, Paychecks and Litter: Returning to the Roots of Zoos Ken Kawata
The North African Barbary Lion and the Atlas Lion Project Nobuyuki Yamaguchi and Brahim Haddane
Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation – an Introduction Catrin and Sven Hammer
Ireland's `Secret Zoo': Fota Wildlife Park Ray Cimino
The British Captive Mammal Census Sam Whitbread and Rob Vaughan
>International Zoo News
Index to Contributors, Vol. 49
Index to Books Reviewed, Vol. 49
Subject Index, Vol. 49

* * *


Nobuyuki Yamaguchi and Brahim Haddane's article on the Atlas Lion Project came as an unexpected but very welcome follow-up to my comments in an editorial a few months ago (I.Z.N. 49:5, pp. 258–259). It is a contribution that I am particularly glad to have the opportunity to publish; for I have wished this project well for many years, and have at times been frustrated by the difficulty of finding authoritative information about it. The present writers, respectively the head of the Oxford University team researching the subspecies and the curator of the zoo from which all its known, or presumed, representatives originate, are uniquely qualified to provide that information.

I first became aware of the possible survival of the Barbary lion more than 20 years ago, when John Aspinall acquired a pair of the `royal' Moroccan animals for Port Lympne Wild Animal Park. I can still remember the enthusiasm and erudition with which he told me about the new arrivals. As a voracious reader of history, John's interest was as much cultural or historical as zoological. This, he enthused, was the race of lion familiar to our ancestors in Europe for thousands of years; these animals had fought and died in the amphitheatres of Rome; in the Middle Ages, they had been the prized possessions of kings, and the stylized lions of heraldry often displayed the lavish belly hair characteristic of the subspecies.

The value of some wild animals as a part of human cultural history is an aspect frequently overlooked by conservationists whose interests are narrowly biological. Yet it can often be the decisive motive behind projects for the recovery or reintroduction of locally endangered or extinct taxa which, regarded objectively, might not seem worth the trouble and expense involved. The South China tiger may be of doubtful taxonomic status and limited genetic value; but the surviving specimens are the last representatives of a geographic race which has played a central role in Chinese literature, art and folklore for millennia – their value today is cultural at least as much as biological. Efforts to save the tiny population of Asiatic cheetahs should receive a boost from the knowledge of the part the subspecies played in the history of the continent, where potentates like Kublai Khan and Akbar the Great kept hundreds of the animals for use in hunting. The resplendent quetzal is not merely one of the most strikingly beautiful birds on earth, but also a species which had a central role in the beliefs of the Aztec and Maya civilizations of Central America.

Every reader, I expect, can supply similar instances of the cultural significance of wild animals throughout history and in all human communities – from the elephants led against the Romans by Pyrrhus and Hannibal to the wolves which many children in Europe still encounter in the first stories read to them by their parents. Even given names and surnames often bear witness to the reverence with which our ancestors regarded wild animals – though not every Leonard or Randolph or Bernard or Bertram is necessarily conscious of a close link with the lion, wolf, bear or raven! Zoos should make use of anything which raises people's awareness of animals; the cultural dimension seems to me to be one which has so far been insufficiently exploited.

Nicholas Gould

* * *



Making of a mental map

Excitement was in the air in Detroit, Michigan, when a new ballpark was opened in April 2000. Named Comerica Park, it was to replace Tiger Stadium as Detroit's home for professional baseball. By the wall in left-center field were sculptured statues of great players from the past, such as Ty Cobb and Charlie Gehringer. The Walk of Fame exhibit in the main concourse would take fans through the Detroit Tigers' history from 1880 to the present (Johnson, 2000). A visit to Berlin Zoo (in the former West Berlin) will provide a similar experience, to review a row of busts of the past directors in one corner of this zoo. The past has not been forgotten in this prestigious institution.

By contrast, the view toward zoos' past may take a different path on this side of the Atlantic. In this youth-worshipping society, many in the current generation seem eager to dismiss our predecessors and their achievements as irrelevant. A keeper asserts, `The early zoos were menageries.' She comments further: `Animals were kept singly in small cages with bars, their social and psychological needs ignored. Breeding was not an issue because animals were replaced with wild-caught specimens' (Segerson, 1991). A zoological society executive director states, `Zoo people are serious, hard-working people. They have noble, difficult goals that they have set for themselves.' She goes on to say, `Because they constantly have to fight a past that was born out of side-shows and menageries, they try even harder to remain detached and rational in their work' (Stringer, 1991).

Apparently, our predecessors, and the past in general, are used as convenient and favorite whipping boys. Even a well-respected zoo professional has this to say: `The zoo profession has lived within an oral tradition that is just becoming documented.' There is some truth in that, but he also observes, `In the past information was not shared openly, but passed from a mentor to an individual. This method of learning has allowed animal managers to operate in a closed group that did not include other disciplines within the organization' (Read, 1999).

Such a sweeping generalization is too simplistic and quite misleading. Bashing the past, although fashionable, is an easy way out, for the subject of our past should not be treated in a one-dimensional, near-sighted manner. What we are witnessing is generational chauvinism, the belief that the current generation is superior to all past generations in all aspects. The simple truth is that our predecessors did what they could with what they had, just as we are doing today. Moreover, the very basis upon which we stand today was built on our predecessors' pioneering efforts, their triumphs and failures, joy and grief. As food for thought, let us take a glance at what it used to be like to begin a zoo career, in this case as a keeper, in the period from the late 1950s to the early 1970s.

Some of us came to the workforce with college education, many of us without, but we were all foot soldiers, hired to do the `grunt' work. We gained invaluable lessons while cleaning up after animals. As in an apprenticeship, basics were taught by keepers with years, often decades, of practical experience. Hands-on techniques, such as manual restraint of animals, were a normal part of life. They taught us to be key and lock conscious. Check and double-check the padlock, and jerk the doorknob a couple of times, to make sure they are secure, we were told. Some of them were fanatic about picking up trash on the grounds, and expected us to do likewise. During coffee breaks they shared with us stories on a wide range of subjects, from animals to visitors. Those men belonged to the blue-collar class, but that mattered little; their anecdotal accounts were often fascinating and insightful.

Mentors were not limited to elder keepers. Some senior staff members were kind enough to nurture us grunts. They told us about other zoos beyond our boundary, and stories about prominent characters in the field such as Roland Lindemann, Roger Conant, Charles Schroeder and, of course, the Bean family (a dynasty which produced four generations of zoo men, including numerous directors and three AAZPA presidents). Some managers shared with us their knowledge on animal life, the basics of natural history. A few of them would even talk about European zoos. For those who were eager to learn, they would tell us which standard literature to read, from Parks and Recreation, I.Z.N., I.Z.Y., Oryx, all the way to Zoological Record and Biological Abstracts. Some of us took the cue, and devoured available materials. That was how we learned the joy of reading.

This is not to say the past was glorious. It was almost exclusively a domain for men. Keepers were middle-aged males with no college education, some of them functional illiterates. Many were professional clock-watchers whose only accomplishment was to pick up paychecks, just as some of today's equivalents are. Not unlike today, not all senior staff members were competent managers or born teachers. And not all the foot soldiers were aspiring and promising students. However, if you had an open mind, were patient and willing to listen, in a couple or three years you were bound to develop a mental map of the zoo world. You had crossed the threshold without knowing it, and later found yourself on this side of the fence (on the other side was the general public).

There existed a body of knowledge, techniques, skills, thoughts and wisdom that had accumulated over many years. Some may call it zoo heritage. A cross-generational transfer of this heritage existed in those days. For aspiring young men, the heritage enabled them to develop a basis for critical thinking. There was also a firm sense of camaraderie which served as ligament to bind us, and we took pride in our work. It was a remarkable and unrepeatable moment, when the animal collection commanded the center stage.

All this came to an end somewhere in the early to mid-1970s. Waves of young men and women with college degrees began to join the keeper ranks. The `old guard,' men with no higher education, were often reluctant to talk to the newer breed of keepers. The younger generation soon formed the majority. Many, if not all, were fresh off the campus with little experience in the real world. They valued their college degrees, and conversely, were indifferent to what the older generation could offer. Mentoring became a lost art, and what started out as a communication gap between the two camps became a generation gap. Meanwhile, another breed of people emerged and became visible in the forefront of the zoo operation.

`Where are the zoologists?'

Often called `businesspeople' by traditionalists, they were armed with expertise in such areas as marketing, public relations, special events and development (fund-raising). These fields were foreign to traditionalists who `cut their teeth' with the animal collection. The new batch of zoo professionals began to arrive at a time when urban zoos, most of them heavily dependent on municipal funds, were facing severe financial crises. This was happening when zoos were required to serve as survival centers for endangered species. `Adapting and maintaining these survival plans will create a number of problems for zoos. The present precarious financing of zoos makes it difficult for individual zoos to commit themselves to establishing and maintaining long-term programs. These programs involve commitment of major economic resources needed to maintain the larger groups of individuals of each species selected' (Donaldson, 1983). As the modern-day Ark became a frail Ark, zoos were expected to become more financially self-supporting. The entry of businesspeople was a necessity for institutional survival, to raise revenue.

Increasingly, the governing authorities realized that `animal people' alone could not manage a zoo in a fiscally satisfactory manner. By 1980 it was evident that businesspeople, who initially functioned as a support group, had become a part of the mainstream. In November of that year a zoo director remarked (Truett, pers. comm.): `Over the past several years, I have been noticing at the national meetings that we get very little zoo zoology. [`Zoo zoology' in this case refers to management of zoo animals, so a `zoologist' means a practitioner in collection management.] But if you collect a representative sample of zoo administrators, strip off the public relations veneer, peel away many layers of concessions contracts and government documents, and dissect away the park planning and budget preparation, you might discover that, at the very core, a few of us are zoologists.'

Hand in hand with this trend, the image of a zoo director (and leadership) was going through a metamorphosis of sorts. At the helm of zoos now were men and women from non-traditional backgrounds. Many had little kinship with the animal collection, or affinity with biology. Their priorities and interests differed considerably from those of the traditionalists. Concurrently, keepers from the younger generation began to enter the middle management level, typically as curators. The two groups, persons from the business background and the post-Vietnam era keepers, came to form the majority. Zoos began to spread beyond their core (the animal collection), with each generation of the new majority claiming another ring around the core. As more rings are added, animals, the breathing creatures, their smell and sounds, recede into the rear-view mirror.

Conversely, the citizenship of the traditionalist fraternity began to dwindle to a peripheral subculture. They found it difficult to communicate with colleagues using the same grammar and terminology. At the same time the mental map of the zoo, once shared by the mainstream in the field, was fading away rapidly.

We live in a time of incredibly rapid changes. Zoos are no isolated islands, cut off from the rest of society. Rapid changes in the American zoo field were noticeable in all areas, including animal management. For years, many of us were aware of a dire need for more science-based animal management. It was exciting that, finally, a larger dose of science was being injected into the animal-related work. The emphasis was on maintaining generations, instead of individuals, of animals. A clear sign of the future direction was first noted during the 1973 AAZPA annual conference in Houston, Texas. At the podium, top-notch speakers emphasized a need for more biological principles in zoo animal management (National Academy of Sciences, 1975). The excitement of the new era was in the air, and there was a strong impression that in the 1980s and beyond, genetics was to become the focal point of animal management. Soon, we witnessed the births of ISIS and SSP.

By the end of the 1980s collective management of zoo animal populations was firmly in place, and the ratio of captive-born individuals in zoos increased dramatically. In terms of daily care of our charges, Dr Roger Conant noted (1997), `The caliber of zoo and aquarium employees, at least among those responsible for the care of the animals, is vastly superior in comparison with the persons who were in charge in the early part of the century.' He added, `Both at Toledo and in my earlier days in Philadelphia, virtually all employees were men. Now women play a large part, and some of the female zoo keepers are able to supply the extra tender, loving care that can be so important to baby animals or even older ones that may be temporarily ill.'

This is not to discredit the observations by Dr Conant, whom I respect immensely. But the accomplishments of our time need to be put into context. Amid celebrations over recent achievements, I cannot help but wonder: What happened to the mental map and the heritage? In the flow of history, it was only yesterday that they were a part of zoo life. Yet, within this brief period, the generation gap further widened into a generation chasm. Some might call it a division.

There are more college-educated persons in the zoo field than before, whose recent accomplishments have been quite impressive. Their efforts are not to be diminished. Progress, however, must be viewed in historical perspective. Under the shadow of success stories, some from the traditionalist fraternity detect another picture that goes unnoted in the zoo community. It appears that certain areas in the zoo field have taken a downward spiral movement in recent years, a phenomenon that coincided with the disappearance of the mental map and heritage. If this sounds like grumbling from the bygone era, from those who are too slow to accept progress, take the example of hands-on animal management. Many would agree that, across the country, the level of keepers' hands-on skills has taken a sharp drop.

To catch a rhea

In a zoo in the American Midwest, keepers requested that male greater rheas be transferred elsewhere because they were `killers.' Those adult males were merely showing the normal threat behavior of charging the keepers, raising wings, lowering the head, opening the mouth and hissing. The zoo management decided to conform to the keepers' wishes. In preparation for the transfer, it was decided that keepers would `crate-train' the birds.

Mature male rheas may appear ferocious and, therefore, dangerous to the public, yet in the eye of an old-timer, they are no match for other ratites such as ostriches (especially males) and cassowaries. In my own experience, crating of an adult male rhea takes only a couple of minutes. You get a crate ready at the gate and walk into the yard. The bird comes running and charges, but momentarily, he stops and hisses. Before he pecks at you, grab him at the base of the head and hold it down. He will kick, but in that position he cannot deliver a full blow. Have a keeper or two behind him, and push him into the crate. Close the door and the job is done. You may get kicked and roughed up a little bit, but that's what you expect when you take a keeper job. And it causes no injury as long as you know what you are doing.

`Well, we don't ``cowboy'' anymore,' the zoo's headkeeper commented in response. This man had decades of experience from the old days, but he was now surrounded by the new generation of college-educated keepers and managers. `It takes weeks to crate-train them, but that's your choice,' I replied. `What if something happens in the yard, such as a rhea gets injured? You have no choice but to go in with them. Or, what if a ratite escapes? How would you get it back in?' He did not respond. Then one day, a keeper was newly assigned to this man's area. She was college-educated, young, intelligent, and had previously worked four years as a keeper in a larger zoo. The headkeeper instructed her to catch bar-headed geese in a yard. He discovered that she had absolutely no clue; she was not afraid, but did not know the use of a net, or the basics of manually restraining a bird. That is unthinkable to a traditionalist.

Regarding birds, I recall receiving cranes from an internationally renowned institution. When the crates arrived from the airport, I noticed that the drop doors were not secured at all; there was no lock, latch, screw, nail or even a piece of baling wire to keep them closed. That was totally unacceptable. If one of the crates had toppled and the door popped open even partially, or if a careless airline cargo handler had pulled the door out of curiosity, there could have been a liberated crane at an airport. A young aviculturist was in charge of shipping at the other end, I learned. Talking to her superior had no effect; since she herself was relatively new in the field, she did not seem concerned.

Moving on to a more `bookish' aspect, biology has become compartmentalized in recent decades, and at the same time certain areas, such as taxonomy and natural history, have been pushed aside. When discussing with a young zoo biologist (who later received a doctorate and became an international figure), I happened to use the term `Ethiopian Region'. It became apparent that she took it to literally mean the name of a country, and that she had no concept of zoogeography. A few years later, I was casually chatting with a middle-aged keeper, whom I'll call T.W. Younger co-workers regarded T.W. as not so smart, his only virtue the ability to wrestle down a big and strong animal. He surprised me when he used the term `Holarctic'; but probably it should not have been surprising – he grew up at a time when people used to read natural history books, so zoogeography was quite familiar to him. Such a chasm between generations may not be limited to the zoo field.

`As an engineer, I have witnessed the talent pool decrease as older engineers retire. Show and style routinely take the place of knowledge and true design experience,' comments Parish (2001). He adds, `I have seen meetings in which an older gentleman who gives a presentation with meticulously analyzed board drawings is received with yawns, while other employees who put on Power Point presentations but have no idea what they are doing receive standing ovations.'

In recent years certain terms came to crystallize as focal issues, touted by the majority: Conservation; Environmental enrichment; Immersion exhibits. These may be described as the majority culture's icons. Also, there are buzzwords such as diversity, science and animal welfare. When the words are chanted, often without specifics, they turn into slogans. When frequently repeated, slogans begin to sound hollow, with little substance. Zoos are like a small boat, sailing in a huge ocean of human activities. When the majority gathers on one side under the slogans, the boat begins to tilt toward a new direction, and certain landmarks on its original course become lost to view.

Returning to Detroit and the subject of baseball, a Detroit Tigers pitcher named Brian Moehler has a unique place in history. He was the starter for the final game in the historic Tiger Stadium on 27 September 1999. Moehler had an appreciation for the history-making finale. `I can say I played on the same field as Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig,' he said (Antonen, 2000).

By comparison to this young baseball player, it is rather doubtful that today's foot soldiers in our zoos have even heard of the prominent figures from yesteryear, including Frank McInnis (Detroit), C. Emerson Brown (Philadelphia) and Edmond Heller (Milwaukee and San Francisco). Back in the 1970s, I had a `litmus test' to measure up a fellow zoo person. Hediger said this and that, I would bring up at a zoo meeting. If someone asked `Who is Hediger?' I would immediately write him off as non-professional. That test, however, no longer works. By the late 1990s, not many in the younger generation even knew the name Lee S. Crandall, let alone Hediger. Sadly, an entire generation is in danger of not knowing a world so interesting and enriching. Our predecessors were the product of a different era, yet their experience often remains important and valuable. Instead of marginalizing them or downright forgetting, we ought to re-examine the past with an open mind.

It is for this reason that I have pointed out the need for historical perspective (e.g. Kawata, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2000a, 2000c). More recently, it has become apparent that lack of historical perspective is but one of the signs of our time. There are other important areas that keep escaping attention, but are deserving of critical review. To name an example, accuracy seems forgotten in some zoo-related publications (e.g. Kawata, 2000b). The state-of-the-art zoo exhibit design is another topic that definitely requires scrutiny in all relevant aspects. Exceptionally, a young historian recently presented an in-depth, penetrating and yet thoughtful review on the immersion exhibit system (Hyson, 2000). We need more insightful and meaningful debates in the zoo field, as he has demonstrated. However, in order to allow such debates, it is essential that we have an open atmosphere.

Only a couple of decades ago, zoo people were able to laugh at themselves, or to argue loudly in the open. At one zoo conference a committee chairman (a zoo director) advocated the use of the term `science' as a substitute for `research', because the latter generated adverse public relations. He met stiff opposition from another zoo director, who took a purist position and insisted upon the use of `research'. This resulted in a near shouting match. `It is very healthy,' a zoo director commented after watching the verbal exchange. In those days, emotionally inflammatory and controversial issues were often brought into the open.

For example, papers were presented and discussions were made about zoo animal euthanasia (Applebaum, 1982; Graham, 1983; Pressman, 1983). Another issue often discussed was surplus animals (e.g. Blakely, 1983; Chaffee, 1983; Conway, 1976, 1978, 1979; Freiheit, 1983; Graham, 1977; Werler, 1974). In recent years, discussions on such issues have become less frequent. Possibly, this is because the collective management programs have finally resolved the difficult issues of surplus animals and euthanasia. Or possibly, somewhere along the way, an open atmosphere became a rarity in the zoo field. At any rate, bringing up a controversial issue may arouse suspicion as an act to expose `dirty laundry' against the code of silence. At best, it may be perceived as a voice from those who discover a new cloud inside every silver lining, instead of a serious attempt at self-examination. Critical self-examination is essential to the growth of an entire industry. There is no sense in painting a falsely glowing picture of ourselves. It does not help to tiptoe around weighty questions for fear of offending the sensitivities of one group or another.

At this point, let me go back once again to the subject of professional baseball. Players and managers alike dive into critical issues, revealing their feelings and honestly examining themselves. Sports writers and fans join in promoting lively debates. The same can be said about another favorite national pastime, the movies, with many critics making a living by writing and talking about them. It takes a whole support system of influential magazines and a host of critics to allow candid discussions on the latest developments, and the historical gaps. Such common ground is all too scarce in the zoo field.

A nation of weathervanes?

It might be argued that an open forum alone is hardly adequate, for it also takes critical thinking to satisfactorily examine a subject. At times it requires seething impatience with the status quo to kick-start critical thinking. Today's foot soldiers need to take a detached approach and a more critical view, instead of always forcing their opinions to conform to the majority culture's icons. They need to expand their horizons beyond the sheltering confines of their profession, and recognize that as long as they remain in the corner of perceived complacency, they will only make limited contributions to the zoo world. Witchel (1999) names three of America's favorite words: Easy, Now, Young. Point-and-click, the younger generation's preferred learning method, certainly represents `Easy' and `Now'. However, unlike the print media, modern information technology is by no means a guaranteed tool for nurturing critical or independent thinking. And in the absence of critical thinking, people often resort to a finger-in-the-wind approach when dealing with an issue.

If the current trend continues, weathervanes and puritanical conformists will soon dominate the zoo world. Already, the tone of voice favored by the majority culture tends to be self-congratulatory. While there are individual exceptions, many among the younger generation appear more at ease when viewing the world through the prism of political correctness. The tendency is to emphasize `safer' subjects, and omit the phenomena that are on a collision course with the approved `party line'. Staying inside this cocoon requires little thought and less initiative, and leaves hardly any room for creativity. Just as acid rain has polluted our natural environment, the invisible toxin of political correctness has slowly been seeping into our intellectual landscape.

Recently, when I visited a progressive zoo in the southern United States, I wandered into a service area of the reptile building. It used to be a common experience that the reptile department stood out as an ivory tower in any zoo, especially compared to the mammal department. Reptile keepers would get into technical subjects, effortlessly rattling through many tongue-twisting scientific names. Although outnumbered by mammal keepers, reptile keepers were the torch-bearers in an `intellectual hinterland' (at least in their own minds). They were the innovators within the keeper rank.

It was a warm autumn afternoon, and we were enjoying shop talk, watching an eastern indigo snake in this off-scene area. Then a middle-aged keeper brought us back to reality when he commented, `Young keepers are so afraid to bring up new ideas because they are ridiculed.' He expressed frustration over the standardization in the zoo industry, and his words indicated that it would take courage to question the majority culture's requirement of obeisance to their icons.

While diversity is one of the slogans of the new era, in actuality a culture of uniformity is taking over. Standardization may be penetrating the very fabric of the zoo community, even in the area of thinking. It also appears that the scope of perception, as well as the range of interest, have become narrower and shallower, a not-so-complimentary observation, considering the high level of formal education amongst the younger generation. They do not seem eager to bridge the gap between zoos and the academic world, nor to make a connection with the `private sector', which in this case includes bird and reptile fanciers, breeders and circuses.

For the majority, it is a rite of passage to denounce capturing wild animals as sin, rape, and a crime. Also viewed in a negative light are iron bars, cages, postage-stamp collections, menageries and circuses, which represent `hot buttons'. Typically, the rubber-stamped sentiment against circuses is firmly set in the collective mind of the current generation, from foot soldiers to administrators. Bringing up this topic makes you realize the dominance of the politically correct orthodoxy. One day in a zoo office I found myself flying into the headwind.

Reciting the loyalty oath

`Circuses are bad,' an education department employee recited the loyalty oath. It almost appeared that she wanted an assurance that I was on her side, that she could trust me. `Have you ever seen a circus?' I asked her, to which she answered `No.' She was reminiscent of the anti-zoo crowd we often encountered in the 1970s. With pained expression and religious fervor, they would assert their belief that zoos exploited animals; they knew that animals were `unhappy' in captivity. Characterized by ignorance, naïveté and bias, they maintained a holier-than-thou stance. I am not taking sides, nor am I classifying zoos and circuses in one category. Rather, the focus here is the attitude, or, to be precise, mentality, the product of a lack of historical perspective, a broader viewpoint and independent thinking.

Regardless of the anti-circus crowd's opinion, zoos and circuses have something in common – wild animals in captivity. They have shared a long historical association, which constitutes a fascinating subject. However, today's zoo professionals choose to ignore that aspect. Their viewpoint is identical to the doctrine laid down by some animal advocate groups. When a circus comes to town, there are bound to be vocal and visible protesters (cited by Sideman, 2001). `These animals are not happy,' one of them said, while another added, `In a civilized society, using animals for our entertainment is archaic.' Noted another: `The mere fact that we take animals out of their natural environments is a sin.' Curiously, these comments are identical to those made by the anti-zoo force. In defense a circus official stated, `We have never been convicted on animal cruelty charges. Our license has never been suspended or revoked. Their allegations have been disproved by a number of scientific studies.' Again, this could well have been said by a zoo official.

If the anti-circus crowd within the zoo industry intends to form an alliance with those animal advocate groups, it is advisable that they use extreme caution on every step of the way. Here are two quotes – albeit very mild ones – about zoos from one issue of the periodical of a representative animal advocate group.

`How can respect for wildlife be instilled through an institution that exploits the object of purported respect? It is just possible that the ultimate educational message transmitted by a zoo, of whatever caliber, is that it is all right to subject animals to the often fatal stress of removal from the wild, all right to confine them, and all right to make sacrifices (the real meaning, not the scientist's euphemism) of them in the hope (or is it rationalization?) that contact with them through bars, glass, or even directly will raise the quality of life and the consciousness of human beings' (Henson, 1981). Another author (Cooper, 1981) begins, `From the outset I must make it clear that I am a believer in the value of zoos as scientific and educational establishments.' On the next page he states, `Having explained my personal position regarding zoos, I must go on to say that I recognize that zoos are an example of exploitation of animals.'

Blakely's account (1975) typifies the reaction from the zoo camp. He read a report by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and responded, `. . . I am saddened by the impression HSUS gives in the report that almost all zoos are bad and that they are the ones who will straighten out this terrible state of affairs.' Quite possibly, as Derby (1995) points out, `On both sides, then, we have entrenchment and strong resentment of the ``other side'' when indeed, there should be open-mindedness and communication.' There is no need to stir up animosity between the two, since wild animals, in situ or ex situ, need help from all of us. As Derby comments, building a bridge toward cooperation and dialogue between the two is much needed. This can be done on a more issue-specific basis, and with caution, because of the simple fact that most, if not all, animal advocates do not want to see wild animals in captivity, in zoo or circus.

More recently, they have been focusing on favorite targets such as circuses and medical laboratories. However, the wind may shift when they want more fuel to maintain the fire. Joining some of the animal advocates in an anti-circus movement may only benefit the very adversaries of zoos. In defense of zoos, the anti-circus crowd may take a position that zoos are not sideshows, but bona fide conservation institutions operated by college-educated professionals.

Conservation is a word that is subjected to a broad range of interpretations, and its exact meaning could therefore be elusive. Energy-related industries, government officials, civic groups, field biologists and zoos each have their own image and definition, and within each group there may be widely differing opinions on conservation. We in zoos often lack exposure to the outer world. Once outside the warm glow of the zoos' cocoon, a rude awakening might be lurking around the corner.

While preparing for a book on zoos, Jon Luoma visited a small group of environmentalists in St Paul, Minnesota, and announced his writing project. He faced a puzzled silence. `I don't like zoos,' one woman finally said quietly. He sensed that most mainstream environmentalists or conservationists treated him with `polite silence' when it came to the subject of zoos. He observes: `By no means based on a scientific survey, my impression is that many environmental activists simply don't like zoos on principle and deeply mistrust zoos' motives and their real commitment to conservation. As Steve Graham once put it, many conservationists hold zoos in about the same contempt that zoo people hold circuses' (Luoma, 1987).

Let us suppose that a young foot soldier attends a conference for biologists, bird-watchers or museum professionals. At a social hour, the foot soldier states that zoos are for conservation. If the person has no firm grasp of the issue, it may sound as if an `official party line' is being recited. `Are zoos really for conservation?' someone might respond inquisitively, adding that zoos use conservation as an indulgence, a remission of the sin of captivity. In their view we are bending reality to match expectations, rather than having expectations match reality. In other words, zoos represent only a foggy mirror of reality.

This is not to dismiss conservation as unworthy, nor to cast any doubt over conservation as one of the chief missions of zoos. Internationally, `the debate about the conservation obligations of zoos has been intensifying lately,' and `in some regions, zoos have a legal/statutory obligation to undertake conservation' (Talbot-Rosevear, 2001). Even without any obligatory aspect, there is no doubt that conservation is a lofty goal that zoos must aspire to. As Dr George Rabb puts it (1994), `Zoological parks are evolving institutions in respect to the conservation of biological diversity.' Still, I cannot shake off one nagging question: Can our deeds in conservation, not our words, withstand a scrutiny by scientists from top-notch universities and museums, and by experts from world-renowned conservation organizations? Only their recognition, not that of animal advocate groups or news media, will give us legitimacy.

Concerning conservation, collection planning has become a focal topic in conjunction with various management programs. I took a quick glance at ten papers on the subject published between 1995 and 2000, totaling 61 pages (Allard, 1999, 2000; Bragin, 1997; Hutchins et al., 1995; McGill, 1995; Meritt, 1997; Read, 1999; Shoemaker, 1995; Smith et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 1999). They range from a global, broad-based overview to a more operational (e.g. husbandry and policies) approach. Although they are inspiring and insightful, I noted that only one author (Meritt) mentions the term `visitor appeal'. Others (Hutchins et al., Bragin) use such terms as `public interest', `public attention' and `public appeal'; Thompson et al. talk about `display quality', `public interest' and `animal popularity', but these are exceptional. At best, the public is given a role only as a minor player. One wonders how many of the authors stroll on zoo grounds at least occasionally, observing visitors and animals, and talking to keepers. An argument can be made that these plans were written exclusively from the standpoint of conservation, yet we should not forget that establishing wildlife conservation programs is a means to an end, not an end itself, and that a zoo is essentially a public institution.

The river keeps flowing

Perhaps, it helps to remind ourselves occasionally of where our (at least, my)

paychecks come from. Most essentially a zoo is for the public, and we get paid by exhibiting animals. The simple fact is that a zoo offers citizens their only contact with wild animals in an urban society. Ed Maruska comments (verb. comm.): `Animal collection and visitors are the most essential components of a zoo. Education, research and even conservation are the by-products of the collection.' While his words may cause vertigo for those who believe that the reasons for zoos' existence are conservation, education and science, Dr Maruska clearly defines where our roots are.

Each bend in the river of history reveals events in a new light. At today's bend, we are fortunate to have witnessed new developments, symbolized by small population management, aided by advanced biotechnology. With all the exciting news, some in the new generation might believe that zoos have finally reached their ultimate stage of evolution. Yet, history has not come to an end. Just think how we will be viewed 100 years from now. Modern zoos have been around for 200 years, and the river of history keeps flowing. It is true that radical changes have been made in recent decades. `It is no longer enough to have animals solely for exhibition; one has to think about why one has them and what to do with them. But fundamentally, whatever the changes prompted by such thinking, zoos still consist of animals kept in enclosures of greater or lesser complexity which the public can walk past to view the animals' (Mullan et al., 1987). It is probably true that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The visiting public, according to Maruska, is one of the two essential components of a zoo. Lofty goals aside, the reality of institutional survival necessitates us to run dolphin shows and camel rides, and to sell rubber snakes and peanuts to the public. As a public facility, a zoo must first gain acceptance by the citizenry, the very foundation without which we cannot begin to consider conservation programs. A zoo can be filled with endangered species, operated by scientists who have achieved the highest level in animal breeding. Yet it cannot expect even a mediocre rating if a potential visitor has difficulty locating it on a map, attendants are unfriendly, visitors cannot find animals on exhibit, bathrooms are filthy and grounds are littered with trash. I recall several zoo directors with doctorates who always pick up litter on their rounds. Their intention is not to impress you; picking up litter is a natural part of their behavioral repertoire.

By contrast, many of today's foot soldiers pay little attention to such basics. Words from a supervisor stressing `war against litter' do not sink into their heads. Characteristically, learning from an elder's example is absent from their ethogram. Perhaps they are so concerned about the bushmeat issue, or environmental enrichment, that litter lies beneath their radar range. Or perhaps, with a bachelor's degree, they are above picking up litter – it is `not my department'. However, if they sincerely care about their zoo, picking up litter should be an essential part of their working life, whether it is required in the official job description or not.

Back to Maruska's assertion, and the animal collection. Let me recall how we in our generation first became interested in zoos. We took our inspiration from an innocent age, long before `virtual reality' took society by storm. There was a great deal of excitement in stepping into a zoo. Roaring of lions from a distant cage, trumpeting of elephants from a barn, pungent odor of gorillas, long eyelashes of an ostrich, towering silhouettes of giraffes. We did not just `see' certain animals; that was too passive a word to describe it. We felt, touched, smelled and tasted them in an almost tactile experience. That simple pleasure attracted us. Animals touched our lives. It all started there.


Allard, R.A. (1999): REGASP: The information you need, when you need it. AZA Annual Conference Proceedings 1999: 65–68.

Allard, R.A. (2000): Beyond `Because we told you to. . .' – Advantages of publishing an approved RCP. AZA Annual Conference Proceedings 2000: 55–59.

Antonen, M. (2000): Old and new stadiums hold special history for Moehler. USA Today (11 April).

Applebaum, D. (1982): Euthanasia of three Siberian tigers at the Detroit Zoo. AAZPA Newsletter 23 (12): 4–7.

Blakely, R.L. (1975): An open letter to HSUS. A.A.Z.P.A Newsletter 16 (6): 4.

Blakely, R.L. (1983): The alternatives and public relations; surplus animal management: problems and options. AAZPA 1983 Annual Conference Proceedings: 292–293.

Bragin, N. (1997): Collections management policies. 1997 AZA Regional Conference Proceedings: 201–204.

Chaffee, P.S. (1983): Suggestions for Implementation of Animal Surplus Guidelines. AAZPA.

Conant, R. (1997): A Field Guide to the Life and Times of Roger Conant. Canyonlands Publishing Group, Provo, Utah.

Conway, W.G. (1976): The surplus problem. AAZPA 1976 National Conference Proceedings: 20–24.

Conway, W.G. (1978): Report of the Animal Surplus Committee. AAZPA Newsletter 19 (11): 14–18.

Conway, W.G. (1979): Board of Directors minutes; Business Meeting minutes. AAZPA Newsletter 20 (12): 6, 14.

Cooper, J.E. (1981): The role and responsibility of zoos: an animal protection viewpoint. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 2 (6): 299–304.

Derby, P. (1995): It's time to call a truce: building cooperation between zoos and animal welfare advocates. 1995 AZA Annual Conference Proceedings: 104–105.

Donaldson, W.V. (1983): Putting the endangered on the ark. Philadelphia Inquirer (17 August).

Freiheit, C.F. (1983): The surplus problem – a brief history. AAZPA 1983 Annual Conference Proceedings: 289–291.

Graham, S. (1977): Surplus animal policy. AAZPA Newsletter 18 (2): 11.

Graham, S. (1983): Case reports and experience. AAZPA 1983 Annual Conference Proceedings: 302–305.

Henson, N. (1981): Getting educated at the zoo. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 2 (6): 282–283.

Hutchins, M., Willis, K., and Wiese, R.J. (1995): Strategic collection planning: theory and practice. Zoo Biology 14 (5): 5–25.

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.

Johnson, C. (2000): `Quality' park inspires Tigers. USA Today (11 April).

Kawata, K. (1991): Hediger who? A plea for historical perspective. International Zoo News 38 (4): 5–10.

Kawata, K. (1992): Concrete cages, circuses, Crandall and computers. AAZPA/CAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings 1992: 313–320.

Kawata, K. (1993): Captivity: a reality check. International Zoo News 40 (8): 13–19.

Kawata, K. (2000a): Who was Belle Benchley? The victimizing of history. International Zoo News 47 (1): 4–11.

Kawata, K. (2000b): Book review. International Zoo News 47 (2): 109–111.

Kawata, K. (2000c): From Regent's Park to the Bronx: A history of zoos. Interpretation 5 (3): 3–5.

Luoma, J.R. (1987): A Crowded Ark. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

McGill, P. (1995): Issues involved in developing an institutional collection plan. 1995 AZA Regional Conference Proceedings: 174–177.

Meritt, D.A. (1997): Animal collection planning: director's mandate or curatorial nightmare? 1997 AZA Annual Conference Proceedings: 88–89.

Mullan, B., and Marvin, G. (1987): Zoo Culture. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

National Academy of Sciences (1975): Research in Zoos and Aquariums. Washington, D.C.

Parish, S. (2001): `Show and Style' vs. Experience. USA Today (30 July).

Pressman, S. (1983): Euthanasia: a humane surplus animal option. AAZPA 1983 Annual Conference Proceedings: 294–301.

Rabb, G.B. (1994): The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving biological diversity. American Zoologist 34: 159–164.

Read, B. (1999): Institutional collection planning (ICP) and the process of developing one for an institution. AZA Annual Conference Proceedings 1999: 69–74.

Segerson, L. (1991): Role of zookeepers in wildlife conservation. AAZPA 1991 Regional Conference Proceedings: 31–39.

Shoemaker, A.H. (1995): Regional collection planning: wishing and living. 1995 AZA Annual Conference Proceedings: 482–487.

Sideman, A. (2001): Protesters brave the heat to cite animal exploitation. The Staten Island Advance (24 July).

Smith, B., and Allard, R. (1999): Regional collection plan: lifeboat or dinghy? AZA Annual Conference Proceedings 1999: 75–79.

Stringer, B. (1991): When a keeper dies. AAZPA 1991 Regional Conference Proceedings: 101–105.

Talbot-Rosevear, M. (2001): Zoo Conservation Handbook Working Group report. CBSG News 12 (1): 25.

Thompson, S.D., and Bell, K.J. (1999): Collection planning at Lincoln Park Zoo: rational for today and template for tomorrow. AZA Annual Conference Proceedings 1999: 80–83.

Werler, J.E. (1974): From the vice president. A.A.Z.P.A. Newsletter 15 (3): 1.

Witchel, A. (1999): To dance flamenco, first feel pain. New York Times (16 May).

Ken Kawata, General Curator, Staten Island Zoo, 614 Broadway, Staten Island, New York 10310, U.S.A. (E-mail: )

* * *




Few would contradict the view that the lion (Panthera leo) has made a deeper impression on the human imagination than has any other animal. However, a famous British mammalogist, R.I. Pocock, once suggested that if all lions had looked like the extant ones the species would not have been regarded as regal or selected as the British national emblem (Pocock, 1936). `Lions which earned that distinction [King of Beasts],' he wrote, `deserved it on account of the magnificence of their appearance due to a huge black and tawny mane covering the neck and shoulders, long enough almost to sweep the ground, and passing along the belly as a deep black fringe . . .' To his regret, Pocock had to continue `. . . such lions are no longer known as wild animals. They inhabited Barbary and the Cape, and are believed to be extinct.'

Almost three quarters of a century later, people still appear to share Pocock's view. When you search for `Barbary lion' or `Cape lion' through the Internet, you hit quite a few sites, some of which may even claim to keep lions of `Barbary' or `Cape' blood. Usually, these claims are accompanied by photographs of male lions with big manes. We are concerned about this, because such an attitude may develop into an exploitation of `Barbary lion' or `Cape lion' as if they were famous brand names. The term `Barbary lion' (or `Cape lion') has a specific meaning, which is not `a big-maned lion of unknown origin'. It may be possible that those lions are, or have the blood of, Barbary lions. However, currently it is impossible to confirm the claim because no widely accepted method is available to test it, and therefore, owners should not claim such lions as Barbary ones. To our knowledge, there is only one lineage of captive lions which may be realistically linked to the Barbary lion – the Moroccan `royal' lions.

In this paper, we summarise (1) what was the North African Barbary lion (also known as the Atlas lion), and (2) the history of the Atlas Lion Project, started in the early 1970s in Morocco, with special reference to its future perspective.

Extinction of the North African Barbary lion

Probably due to its close geographical proximity to Europe, a lion from North Africa (Constantine, Algeria) was used as the type specimen when Linnaeus first gave the Latin name Felis leo to the species in 1758 (Harper, 1945). To judge by historical records, one contiguous lion population may once have been distributed from North Africa through the Middle East to India, and was probably connected to the sub-Saharan population through the present Egypt–Sudan–Ethiopia region (Buffon and Daubenton, 1761; La Cépède et al., 1801; Cuvier, 1823; Jardine, 1834; Blanford, 1876; Vogt and Specht, 1889; Flower and Lydekker, 1891). At the dawn of modern natural history, lions were often classified as Barbary, Senegal, Cape or Asiatic (Temminck and Cuvier, 1827; Jardine, 1834) – all, ironically, races which are nowadays either extinct or endangered. The lions distributed in the whole of Africa north of the Sahara were called lions of Barbary (Duncan, 1883–1889). However, the eastern part of North Africa (modern Libya and Egypt) may not have supported a dense lion population even well before the time of major human persecution (Harper, 1945; Nowell and Jackson, 1996), possibly because of the aridity of the region. Probably by the early 18th century at the latest, lions had disappeared from that part of the North African Mediterranean littoral (Johnston, 1899). This left an isolated population in the western part of North Africa (now called Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), which was thought to be still quite large at that time (Pease, 1899; Harper, 1945). In 1667 a Spanish traveller, Marmol, wrote `There are so many lions in the country [Morocco] that they are not feared. . .' (Guggisberg, 1963). Such early travellers also described lion fights that took place in the 16th and 17th centuries at Fez, Morocco, where archers shot lions in a large square surrounded by high stone walls (Guggisberg, 1963).

By the middle of the 19th century, however, the remaining population was greatly diminished, mainly due to the wide distribution of firearms and the lion eradication policy of the Turkish administration which controlled the whole region except Morocco, which was an independent sultanate (Pease, 1915). Two tribes, the Ouled Meloul and the Ouled Cessi, devoted themselves to the perilous pursuit of Barbary lions (Pease, 1915). They were freed from taxation and paid handsomely for lion skins. Also, the easy accessibility from Europe may have played an important role in lion extinction. Ormsby (1864) described `. . . a man who has dined on Monday in London can, if he likes, by making the best use of express trains and quick steamers, put himself in a position to be dined on by a lion in Africa on the following Friday evening.' Although some North Africans and Europeans seem to have tolerated the existence of lions because of their role in limiting the numbers of wild boar (Sus scrofa) (Ormsby, 1864), the bounty policy was continued later under French control (Pease, 1915). Jules Gérard, the famous French lion hunter in Algeria, even proposed total eradication by establishing organised lion hunts. In 1848 he suggested that local people in Constantine (in the eastern part of the country) would be very happy to pay all necessary costs (20,000 francs annually), because the province had been losing 200,000 francs to the lions every year (Gérard, 1856). Although his proposal was not accepted by the authorities, between 1873 and 1883 a total of 202 lion kills were recorded in French Algeria, 173 in the province of Constantine, 29 from Algiers (the central part of the country), and none from Oran (western) (Pease, 1899, 1915). For these a total bounty equivalent to £400 sterling was paid, along with £720 for 1,214 panthers, £400 for 1,882 hyaenas and £1,600 for 27,000 jackals during the same period (Land and Water 6 February 1886; J. Edwards, pers. comm.). As a result, in both Tunisia and Algeria, lions had virtually become extinct by the end of the 19th century. The last recorded lion in Tunisia was killed in 1891 near Babouch, in the north-west corner of the country, and in Algeria in 1893 near Batna, about 100 km south of Constantine (Pease, 1915; Guggisberg, 1963; Nowell and Jackson, 1996), although the last Algerian lion may have been shot in an unknown location as recently as 1943 (C. Keeling, pers. comm.). In Morocco lions survived well into the 20th century, but finally ceased to exist in the 1940s (Harper, 1945; Nowell and Jackson, 1996). The last kill was recorded in 1942 on the northern side of the Tizi-n-Tichka pass in the Atlas Mountains, near the road between Marrakesh and Ouarzazat, two major tourist destinations today (F. Cuzin, pers. comm.).

Size and mane: fact and myth

Barbary lions are frequently described as huge animals, with the males possessing the most well-developed manes amongst all lions. As these descriptions are so widely accepted, it is perhaps surprising that there is little evidence available to support them (Mazák, 1970; Hemmer, 1974).

During the days of `big game shooting' some hunter-naturalists tried to assess the body size of lions objectively. Bryden (1899) suggested that an average fully-grown male African lion measured c. 2.7 m along the straight line (c. 2.85 m along the curve of the body) between the tip of the nose and the tip of the tail, consisting of c. 1.8 m of head and body and c. 90 cm of tail. More recently, field biologists have carried out measurements confirming an average total length (in a straight line) of c. 2.7 m, and suggesting a weight of c. 185 kg (Schaller, 1972; Bertram, 1978; Smuts et al., 1980), although males living in the prey-rich Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania, may attain an average weight of over 200 kg (Yamaguchi et al., unpublished). How big was a Barbary lion? The famous French zoologist Cuvier measured a six-year-old captive-reared male Barbary lion, which had head and body length of 5 pieds 2 pouces (= c. 1.58 m), tail length c. 66.1 cm, height of forequarters c. 83.6 cm and of hindquarters c. 83.6 cm (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). This lion was caught in eastern Algeria in 1795 at about one year old and died at ten years old in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Although the live lion may not have given Cuvier accurate measurements, the animal seems to have been very small for a male lion. It is, however, doubtful whether captive Barbary lions, usually captured as cubs and kept in menageries during the 18th or 19th centuries, attained the full body size. Cuvier himself referred to undesirable captive conditions at the menagerie (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Cornish (1899) reported that big cats only lived, on an average, for two years in London Zoo in the mid-1800s. Gérard (1856) also expressed his concern about the captive condition of lions at the Jardin des Plantes. On the other hand, he described a big wild Barbary lion he shot with the comment `This lion, compared to the finest of those which are exhibited in our menageries, or at the Jardin des Plantes, was what a horse is to a donkey. . .' There is, however, no credible record of body measurements of wild Barbary lions. Gérard (1856) described the size of wild male Barbary lions as c. 2.3 m from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, which measured c. 90 cm, and their weight as c. 270–300 kg. If this had been true, Barbary lions would indeed have been big amongst lions. However, the methods of obtaining these measurements (e.g. straight or along the curve) were not specified, and the accuracy of the measurements themselves may be questionable, as Gérard made them in the field. Although Pease (1899, 1915) suggested that North African lions might have become very heavy because they fed on mutton so much, regarding the body length he seems not to have believed what he himself quoted – an Algerian lion whose head and body length was c. 2.5 m and the tail length 75 cm.

Since the Roman era Barbary lions have been kept in menageries in many European countries. For example, in the early 18th century the King's Menagerie in the Tower of London kept six Barbary lions along with one Cape lion, a pair of `Bengal' lions (from northern India) and one Senegal lion (Newbery, 1753). Furthermore, many Barbary lions were killed in North Africa even towards the end of the 19th century (Pease, 1899, 1915), by which time some big natural history museums were well established. Therefore, it is possible that skulls of those lions, both captive and wild, have ended up in private collections and museums in Europe, providing a large amount of study materials of Barbary lions. Nevertheless, currently fewer than ten adult skulls (males and females combined) are known. The largest Barbary lion skull so far measured, which is partly broken, has an estimated greatest length of c. 360 mm (Mazák, 1970; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Although 360 mm is not small, big skulls of sub-Saharan lions easily reach a maximum length of over 380 mm, and some even over 400 mm (Hemmer, 1974; Best, 1981; Yamaguchi, unpublished). Does this mean Barbary lions were not particularly big? Due to such a small sample size, we have to wait until more specimens may become available. The big lion Gérard shot in Algeria was presented to the Duchess of Orléans (Gérard, 1856), but the current whereabouts of this specimen and other wild-shot Barbary lions which decorated Gérard's Paris residence are not known.

It has long been suggested that the temperature would have the most important effect on lions' mane size (Selous, 1908; Pease, 1915; Pocock, 1936). Recently, West and Packer (2002) scientifically demonstrated that there is indeed a strong positive correlation between mane size and cooler temperatures. Barbary lions living in the Atlas Mountains experienced winters colder by far than those in most other African regions. During his winter hunts, Gérard followed the footprints left by lions in the snow in conditions where his thermometer went down far below zero (Gérard, 1856). He sarcastically wrote `Notwithstanding this uncomfortable carpet, however, and this temperature so little congenial to those of her species (if we may believe our scientific naturalists), a lioness had settled in the country' (Gérard, 1856). Therefore, it is likely that, in their Atlas habitat, male Barbary lions developed bigger manes than any extant lions in the wild. However, things are not so straightforward in captivity.

In their natural habitats, extant lions – both African and Asiatic – usually do not possess a mane extending behind the shoulders and along the belly (Bryden, 1899; Selous, 1908; Pocock, 1936). However, when lions from these regions are kept in cooler European zoos they always develop bigger manes, which sometimes even spread back into these parts of the body (Pocock, 1936; V. Simeonovski and W. Frey, pers. comm.). Furthermore, it is suggested that the colour and size of a lion's mane are influenced by other factors, such as nutrition and physiological stress (West and Packer, 2002). Indeed, the fact that North African lions depicted in Roman art do not necessarily possess big manes may suggest that the captive environment of Roman times affected their mane growth (W. Frey, pers. comm.). This may suggest that the big mane, so strongly associated with the Barbary lion in our minds, is not always a good morphological character to distinguish it from the rest. Nevertheless, when Cuvier compared a Barbary lion and a Senegal lion at the Jardin des Plantes, he noted that the Barbary had a much bigger mane (Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824). Also, it is suggested that, in European zoos, lions from North Africa, Asia and the Cape almost always develop the biggest manes (and belly manes), and those from southern Africa occasionally develop belly manes, which are rarely developed by lions from east and west Africa (Pocock, 1936; V. Simeonovski and W. Frey, pers. comm.). Therefore, there may be a link to a certain extent between males' mane size and locality. But it is worth pointing out that, in zoos in cooler regions such as Europe, Russia, North America and the southern parts of the Republic of South Africa, captive male lions with big manes do not necessarily have any Barbary blood.

Royal lions of Morocco

Had it not been for the royal lion collection of the Sultans and Kings of Morocco, the Barbary lion would long ago have survived only in our memories. But the royal lions have not only the right Barbary looks, but also, very importantly, the right pedigree supported by circumstantial evidence. Although it may not be very solid, the existence of such evidence clearly separates the royal lions from all the other big-maned lions whose pedigrees are untraceable.

Moroccan nobles are said to have kept lions captured in the Atlas Mountains, and sultans and kings of Morocco were presented with these lions by the nobles, as well as by indigenous Berber people who shared the Atlas Mountains with the last Barbary lions (U. Hirsch, W. Frey, pers. comm.). B. Heck wrote in 1899 that, in spite of having previously been the most commonly exhibited lion, true Barbary lions were hardly seen at that time, except those owned by the Sultan of Morocco (quoted in Hemmer, 1978). The sultan kept his lions in a special lion garden in the royal palace, and to feed them an ox or sheep and goats were thrown into the garden (B. Heck, quoted by Hemmer, 1978). Except for occasional access to the lion garden, they are said to have been kept in twos or threes in small cages. Over the coming half-century the royal lions survived war and insurrection. When Sultan Moulay Youssef moved from Fez to Rabat following the French decision in 1912 to make Rabat the administrative centre of Morocco, the royal lions, too, were moved from the residence near the Atlas Mountains to the coastal city. In 1953, when Sultan Sidi Mohammed Ben Youssef (later King Mohammed V) was forced to abdicate and went into exile, the royal lions (21 in total) too lost their home at the palace. Three of them were sent to a zoo in Casablanca and the rest were sent to a zoo in Meknès. After the sultan came back to the palace in 1955, the Meknès lions moved back to Rabat again, but the Casablanca lions never came back. Meanwhile the rest of the world continued to assume the Barbary lion was extinct – a premature belief which nearly became fact when a respiratory disease hit the royal lions hard in the late 1960s. King Hassan II, then the owner, decided to reduce the risk and improve life for the lions. A new enclosure was completed in Temara, near Rabat, to house the royal lions, and in 1973, under the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture, this became Rabat Zoo.

The Atlas Lion Project

Even before Rabat Zoo was created, a German naturalist, Wolfgang Frey, who had been intensively searching for information on the Barbary lion, clearly pointed out the importance of the Moroccan royal lions. Realising how precious this bloodline (now numbering 27 lions) was, Yves Raymond, then Director of Rabat Zoo, started to make contact with zoologists worldwide. Among them were the renowned big-cat experts Professors Helmut Hemmer and Paul Leyhausen. In 1974, when Hemmer completed a monograph on the morphology and evolution of the lion (Hemmer, 1974), they visited Morocco to examine the royal lions. Although there were very few specimens (skins and skulls), photographs and paintings of true Barbary lions available, by examining them Hemmer and Leyhausen reconstructed the likely external characteristics of the Barbary lion to assess the royal lions. These characteristics are (1) greyish pelage, (2) longer fur creating a shaggy look, (3) females and young males possessing long hairs around neck/throat, back of front legs and along belly, (4) males possessing a huge mane covering not only head, neck and shoulders, but also extending behind shoulders and covering belly, (5) colour of the mane varying amongst the parts of the body and becoming darker towards the posterior parts, (6) well-developed tail tuft, (7) higher occiput (back of head), with a more pointed crown, creating a straighter line between the tip of the nose and the back of the head, (8) rounded cheek and proportionally narrow muzzle, and (9) narrow postorbital constriction of the skull (Leyhausen, 1975; Hemmer, 1978).

Although the zoologists were very impressed by the royal lions in terms of characteristics 1 to 8, they were not able to examine many specimens for 9 – which can only be assessed post mortem – as only two skulls (a male and a female) originating from the royal lions were available (Leyhausen, 1975; Hemmer, 1978). According to Hemmer (1978), the postorbital constriction of the female skull was not as narrow as that of a real Barbary lion, and the size of the male skull was too big compared to any known true Barbary lion skulls. It is reported that, in good modern captive conditions, lions always develop bigger skulls compared to wild ones of the same age (Smuts et al., 1978). Also, as we discussed above, it may not be realistic in the first place to assess the size of the Barbary lion from such a small number of materials. Furthermore, Hollister (1918), while studying the differences in muscle and bone development between wild and captive lions by examining specimens of the same origins and similar ages, suggests that a straightforward comparison of skulls between wild and captive animals, or between animals of different captive conditions, needs an extra caution. Therefore, the non-Barbary characteristics of the two skulls of royal lions, animals whose ancestors had been in captivity for many generations, may not have been caused by hybridisation with lions of other origins. However, being unable to wait until all questions were answered, the zoologists decided to move forward by assuming that gene contamination(s) had happened. A selective breeding programme was proposed.

Hemmer and Leyhausen graded the animals into three categories showing the most (Category 1) to the least (Category 3) Barbary lion traits on the bases of the eight parameters that can be examined in live animals. This resulted in 11 (3.8) animals classified as Category 1, 13 (2.11) as Category 2 and three (1.2) as Category 3. When they had finished the classification, the zoologists realised an interesting thing. There were several characteristics, previously unknown, shared by most Category-1 animals, which included (10) visibly prominent anterior edge of the pelvis, (11) dished rostral profile, and (12) iris of pale yolk yellow rather than dark yellow or olive colour. Concerning character 10 in particular, Hemmer (1978) suggested that there might be more than a mere coincidence between the Category-1 animals and 19th century Barbary lion paintings, where the same pelvic characteristic was found. They decided to include Category-1 and -2 animals in the selective breeding programme, through which each offspring would be re-classified on the bases of these 12 characteristics. Hemmer and Leyhausen considered that, through this selective breeding, the Barbary lion could be restored not only in its phenotype, but also in its genotype. Although there had been a few attempts at reconstruction of extinct mammals, such as tarpan (Equus ferus gmelini) and aurochs (Bos primigenius), these were merely phenotypical reconstructions, because the original genotypes would be unlikely to be restored after hundreds or thousands of years of domestication (Hemmer, 1978). However, the Barbary lion had become extinct only 30 years before and the restoration of both phenotype and genotype seemed feasible (Hemmer, 1978), similar to the case of the Przewalski horse. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture of Morocco even suggested the possibility of reintroduction of the successfully reconstructed Barbary lions into the Atlas Mountains (Leyhausen, 1975). Thus the Atlas Lion Project was conceived.

Breeding the Royal lions

Related to the `discovery' of the royal lions, 22 (10.12) animals of either Category 1 or 2 were moved to six zoos worldwide between 1973 and 1978. These were the National Zoo, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (2.3), Frankfurt Zoo, Germany (3.1), Leipzig Zoo, Germany (1.2), Lyon Zoo, France (1.1), Dvur Králové Zoo, Czech Republic (1.3), and Havana Zoo, Cuba (2.2). Later other zoos obtained royal lions from these zoos (Table 1). Unfortunately, we have not been able to trace every animal due to the failures of corresponding attempts with a few zoos and unknown contact addresses of some private organisations, e.g. circuses. Nevertheless, we have obtained a fairly good outline of the breeding history of the royal lions since 1970.

When the animals were moved to Rabat Zoo in 1970, there were 39 royal lions. They produced 49 cubs between 1970 and 1973 at Rabat, out of which 28 were moved to private organisations, mainly circuses in France, Spain and Portugal. From 1974 onwards, most cubs born in Rabat have been either kept there or moved to other zoos, mainly in Europe (Table 1), and currently there are c. 60–80 royal lions worldwide (Table 2). Amongst zoos, Rabat (Morocco), Port Lympne (U.K.) and Olomouc (Czech Republic) are most active in terms of breeding, and interest in keeping royal lions. Although the calculated categories in Table 2 may not be very useful (animals need re-classification in each generation), it may be worth mentioning that Category-1 animals are concentrated in the Czech Republic and Germany.

Problems concerning the Atlas Lion Project

Apart from the one we discuss later, the two most important problems of the Atlas Lion Project concern inbreeding amongst the existing animals and the meaning of Barbary lion preservation. The royal lions might have been already heavily inbred when Hemmer and Leyhausen visited Rabat in 1974. Many zoos keeping royal lions do not have facilities big enough for more than three or four adult animals. As a result, quite a few cubs have been produced by matings between closely-related animals. Interestingly, in spite of such matings royal lions do appear to reproduce well, although many cubs have been lost shortly after birth due to inadequate maternal care. Nevertheless, continuous inbreeding may cause negative effects on the reproduction of royal lions in the future. Furthermore, there is an ethical concern about matings between closely-related individuals. The main reason for this problem may be the fact that zoos have not been well-informed about the whereabouts of other royal lions, making it difficult to obtain less-related animals. Establishing frequent communications amongst zoos may solve this problem.

Obviously, one of the most important roles of the zoo is conservation of endangered species. Theoretical studies suggest that a conservation unit needs to be assessed on the bases of both genetic and ecological (including morphological) information to maintain evolutionary processes and the potential for evolutionary changes in the future (Crandall et al., 2000). Practically, however, the most commonly recognised unit of conservation of large mammals appears to have been a widely accepted subspecies. Earlier morphological studies of museum specimens proposed that the Barbary lion was a distinct subspecies among the eight of the modern lion (Mazák, 1970; Hemmer, 1974; Mazák, 1975). Therefore, when the Atlas Lion Project was started in the 1970s, zoos might have been able to justify allocating some of their limited space to keeping the royal lions. However, during the 1980s rapidly advancing molecular phylogenetics suggested that modern lions share a common ancestor in the very recent past, estimated at between 55,000 and 200,000 years ago (O'Brien et al., 1987). Inevitably a question arose about the status of lion subspecies. If lion radiation were such a recent phenomenon, would it be appropriate to distinguish subspecies? As a result, since the late 1980s the main trend has been towards sorting all previous lion subspecies into two, African and Asiatic. (Why were two subspecies retained, although O'Brien et al. (1987) suggested that a subspecific status might not be appropriate for any lions? The answer might lie in the conservation bureaucracy – considering the rarity of the Asiatic lion, conservationists wanted to retain that subspecies and not to lessen its endangered status.) This trend was a heavy blow to the Atlas Lion Project, as many people started to think that there was no reason to consider lions from North Africa and southern Africa different when they were both African lions. So some zoos lost interest in keeping the royal lions.

More than ten years later a similar study was made for tigers, resulting in a similar suggestion: traditional tiger subspecies are phylogenetically very close to each other (Wentzel et al., 1999). Contrary to the widely accepted idea, therefore, if lions can be classified as either African or Asiatic, nowadays we may have good reason to do something similar to tigers – lumping them into either `island tiger' (only the Sumatran is left) or `continental tiger', which includes Siberian, South China, Indo-Chinese and Indian tigers. But the subspecific status of tigers may have been preserved, not only because the species is highly endangered, but also because of further advances in molecular biology. As these studies have progressed, it has become clear that distinctive population units are less likely to be found in species characterised by high levels of gene flow, such as birds and large mammals, on the bases of the molecular phylogenetic analyses currently widely used (Crandall et al., 2000). In other words, lions may not be particularly phylogenetically close to each other compared to other large mammals (e.g. tigers), but simply, have been studied earlier than most of them. Sadly, the excellent pioneer work by O'Brien et al. (1987) was a bit too early for most people, who over-interpreted the results and came to the premature conclusion that negatively influenced the Atlas Lion Project.

It seems obvious that large mammals like lions can travel a huge distance, making possible a gene flow between two widely separated populations. However, selection on the basis of local environments may also occur. Such selection may result in heritable phenotypes unique to certain populations, making them evolutionarily significant for lion conservation although they may be phylogenetically close to other populations. Unfortunately, the neutral sites within DNA, which are currently widely used for molecular phylogenetics of mammals, are not the most suitable to pick up the results of such selection accumulated in the DNA. For example, in a hypothetical case, even if the genes related to possessing a thick coat had been heavily selected in the Barbary lion population, such molecular techniques would be unlikely to detect it. Although probably this does not affect phylogeny on the basis of the time since the divergence, such a technique, therefore, tends to underestimate the existence of the genetic characteristics selected regionally, if there are any. The extreme example may be the relationship between populations with paraphyletic histories such as the brown bear and the polar bear. From the phylogenetic viewpoint, on the basis of mitochondrial DNA (Talbot and Shields, 1996), the polar bear may be just a circumpolar population of the brown bear. However, they differ greatly from each other in many morphological and ecological characteristics depending on their adaptation to the environment, and are recognised as two distinct species. At the moment, the traditional morphological examination remains the only feasible method to pick up such characteristics.

For the conservation of a species, it is suggested that population management should aim to preserve adaptive diversity and evolutionary processes across the geographical range of the species (Crandall et al., 2000) – in other words, to preserve a species as what it used to be in the pre-human natural condition. However close they may be phylogenetically, under natural circumstances West African and Central African lions, the closest extant lion populations to the North African, probably have not mixed with Barbary lions on a regular basis, because penetrating the Sahara has not been easy during its dry phases. Needless to say, other African lions have never had any chance to do so. It may be possible to consider that the Barbary lion was a relict lion population, having been cornered in north-west Africa by the drying Sahara even without the human persecution of the last three hundred years. Needless to say, it was the only African lion population north of the Sahara, and was likely to be exposed to much colder winters than any other lions surviving today. On this basis, the Barbary lion was probably ecologically unique amongst lions, and the gene flow between this population and the other lion populations may have been less than those amongst other African lion populations. Considering these facts, preserving the Barbary lion should be given a high priority for lion conservation.

Future of the Atlas Lion Project

For the future of the Atlas Lion Project, before all, the following question must be answered. To what extent are the royal lions true Barbary, possessing both phenotype and genotype of the Barbary lion? We discussed how limited the reliable information is for understanding the phenotype of the Barbary lion. However, at least zoologists may be able to reconstruct it, and the royal lions appear to possess it. The real challenge is investigating genotype. The historical background of the collection suggests it is highly likely that the royal lions have Barbary blood, but do they? The ongoing advances in molecular techniques may offer a powerful method to investigate this. Driscoll (1998) demonstrated that lion populations from India, Serengeti-Ngorongoro (Tanzania), Etosha (Namibia), Kruger (north-eastern South Africa), and Kalahari (north-western South Africa) are distinguishable from each other based on an analysis of c. 60–90 nuclear microsatellite loci. Because Etosha, Kalahari and Kruger are all within potential lions' walking distance of each other, the distinguishing power of the method is amazing, if not over-sensitive. Can this method be used to identify the origin of the royal lions? The answer is, theoretically, yes. The genetic characteristics of the royal lions can be compared to those of other lions and true Barbary lions on the bases of those microsatellite loci. However, because there is no undisputed living Barbary lion, the investigation must rely on museum specimens as a source of Barbary DNA. As DNA is very much fragmented in old museum specimens, it is very difficult to obtain useful pieces from such ancient materials (e.g. old bones and skins) compared to modern materials (e.g. blood and tissues from living animals). Also, most Barbary lion specimens available originated from Algeria rather than Morocco (Yamaguchi, unpublished), making the work even more difficult. Having said this, if genetic markers which identify the Barbary lion were found, this would provide us a more thorough way of gauging the origin of current breeding stock than outward appearance alone. However, the molecular work will not provide any conclusion tomorrow because of the technical difficulties and the lack of necessary funds. This being so, can zoos justify keeping the royal lions for the time being? Furthermore, the molecular work may suggest a negative result. What would then happen to the royal lions?

Ironically, a possible answer may come from the very same results that nearly destroyed the identity of the Barbary lion in the first place. If all African lions are phylogenetically so close to each other, restoration of the Barbary lion through a well-planned selective breeding programme on the basis of the reconstructed phenotype may be acceptable provided no other option is available. Furthermore, we think that another answer lies in the historical significance of the Barbary lion in many cultures. Along with conservation activities, zoos have major roles in education and preserving living heritages. Zoos can offer the excitement of seeing real animals, and in this respect, museums and TV programmes cannot match the zoo. The Barbary lion is a natural heritage, especially in the more than two thousand years of cultural history in North Africa and Europe, including Britain. This would justify keeping the royal lions in zoos even if, in an unlikely event, they were merely phenotypical representatives of the Barbary lion. This is so because, though diluting the genotype of the Barbary lion to the extent where current science cannot detect it would be bad enough, losing its magnificent phenotype too would be a serious loss.

Potential reintroduction

Assuming all problems may be solved, seeing Barbary lions in the wild in the Moroccan Atlas may become possible. Apart from the above-mentioned genetic investigation, the Moroccan authorities recognise that the Atlas Lion Project involves (1) continuous selective breeding, (2) ecological assessment of the possible reintroduction site, (3) protecting the natural environment of the area and releasing lions, and (4) monitoring the released animals and promoting eco-tourism. Between the Middle and High Atlas lies a rocky mountainous area where green oaks dominate the landscape. The River El Abid runs through canyons where the endangered Barbary leopard may still survive. But for a few grazing goats, there is little human activity. Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus), Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) and wild boars live there, and Cuvier's gazelles (Gazella cuvieri) and Barbary red deer (Cervus elaphus barbarus) may also be reintroduced to restore the original Moroccan fauna. As a part of this faunal restoration programme, lions may be released into a securely-fenced semi-natural enclosure. The enclosure should be large enough for several adult lions to live with minimum human intervention. Because lions potentially cause hazards to humans and livestock, releasing them into an open area is out of question, at least for a while. The area includes a valley, where to the north, a steep cliff acts as a natural barrier, and therefore, it is necessary to build fences only to the south, east and west. Although when we visited the area in January 2001 heavy snow prevented our vehicle from accessing the actual site for potential release, if necessary the road can be kept open all year round. Therefore, vehicle access from the main road connecting the tourist destinations of Fez and Marrakesh would allow regulated tourist visits to the area to see the original Moroccan fauna. Also, facilities to monitor and help the survival of the released lions, and to provide information and care to visitors, would be necessary. If this faunal restoration area were created, it would become a conservation flagship in the North African region. So some day, we may once again see big, dark-maned lions against the snow-capped Atlas backdrop, and listen to their roars filling the valleys with echoes as was described by Ormsby in 1864.


We thank John Edwards, Wolfgang Frey and Clinton Keeling for various information about zoos and captive lions, Wolfgang Frey and Velizar Simeonovski for data on manes of captive lions, Fabrice Cuzin for the last record of wild lion in Morocco, Bridget Clifford for information on the old Royal Menagerie at the Tower of London, and Kay Hill for arranging our visit to the Atlas Mountains. We also thank Randy Barker (Cheyenne Mountain Zoo), Baton Rouge Zoo, A. Bernhard (Leipzig), M. Blanc (Cézallier), Siegfried Czernay (Halle), J.P. Deschanel (Lyon), Manuel L. González (Madrid), Geoffrey R. Greed (Bristol), Claus Hagenbeck (Hagenbeck), Flissi Hassan and E.M.A.E. Omari (Casablanca), Marianne Holtkotter (Stuttgart), Kurt Kolar, Harald Schwammer and Sabine Fruhwirth (Vienna), Jaroslav Kucera (Brno), Mike Lockyer and Adrian Harland (Port Lympne), Radka Marikova and Kristina Tomasova (Dvur Králové), G. Nogge (Cologne), Wolfgang Peter (Straubing), John Seidensticker (Washington), F. Salz (Basel), Ilona Schappert (Dortmund), Jitka Vokurkova, Hanna Labska and Zdenek Slavotinek (Olomouc), Ron Willis (Dublin) and Silvio Pitteri for their kind help for tracing the breeding records of the royal lions. We thank the late Paul Leyhausen and Helmut Hemmer for various information regarding the Barbary lion and the Atlas Lion Project.


Bertram, B. (1978): Pride of Lions. J.M. Dent and Sons, London.

Best, A.A. (ed.) (1981): Rowland Ward's Records of Big Game: 18th Edition. Rowland Ward Publishing, Newbridge Mill.

Blanford, W.T. (1876): Eastern Persia. Volume II: Zoology and Geology. Macmillan and Co., London.

Bryden, H.A. (ed.) (1899): Great and Small Game of Africa. Rowland Ward Ltd., London.

Buffon, G.L.L., and Daubenton, L.J.M. (1761): Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Particulière avec la Description: Tome Neuvième. Imprimerie Royale, Paris.

Cornish, C.J. (1899): Life at the Zoo. Seeley and Co., London.

Crandall, K.A., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Mace, G.M., and Wayne, R.K. (2000): Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 290–295.

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. (1823): Recherches sur les Ossements Fossiles. Nouvelle Édition, Tome Quatrième. G. Dufour & E. d'Ocagne, Paris.

Driscoll, C.A. (1998): A characterization of microsatellite loci variation in Panthera leo, Acinonyx jubatus and Felis concolor. M.Sc. thesis, Hood College, Maryland.

Duncan, P.M. (ed.) (1883–1889): Cassell's Natural History. Cassell, Peter and Galpin, London.

Flower, W.H., and Lydekker, R. (1891): An Introduction to the Study of Mammals Living and Extinct. Adam and Charles Black, London.

Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire, E., and Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. (1824): Histoire Naturelle des Mammifères, Tome Premier. M.C. de Lasteyrie (A. Belin), Paris.

Gérard, J. (1856): The Adventures of Gérard, the Lion Killer. Derby and Jackson, New York.

Guggisberg, C.A.W. (1963): Simba. Chilton Books, Philadelphia.

Harper, F. (1945): Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World. American Committee for International Wild Life Protection, New York Zoological Park, New York.

Hemmer, H. (1974): Untersuchungen zur Stammesgeschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae). Teil III: zur Artgeschichte des Löwen Panthera (Panthera) leo (Linnaeus, 1758). Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung München 17: 167–280.

Hemmer, H. (1978): Grundlagen und derzeitiger Stand des Zuchtprogrammes zur Rückerhaltung des Berberlöwen. In International Tiger Studbook (eds. S. Seifert and P. Muller), pp. 65–73. Zoological Garden Leipzig, Germany.

Hollister, N. (1918): Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 99: East African Mammals in the United States National Museum. Part 1, Insectivora, Chiroptera, and Carnivora. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Jardine, W. (1834): The Naturalist's Library. Vol. II: the Natural History of Felinae. W.H. Lizars, and Stirling and Kenny, Edinburgh.

Johnston, H.H. (1899): The lion: in Tunisia. In Great and Small Game of Africa (ed. H.A. Bryden), pp. 562–564. Rowland Ward Ltd., London.

La Cépède, M., Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D., Maréchal, N., and Miger, S.C. (1801): La Ménagerie du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Miger, Patris, Grandcher and Dentu, Paris.

Leyhausen, P. (1975): Preliminary report on the possibility of a breeding programme for the Atlas lion at Temara Zoo, Morocco. International Zoo News 21: 22–23.

Mazák, V. (1970): The Barbary lion, Panthera leo leo, (Linnaeus, 1758): some systematic notes, and an interim list of the specimens preserved in European museums. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 35: 34–45.

Mazák, V. (1975): Notes on the black-maned lion of the Cape, Panthera leo melanochaita (Ch. H. Smith, 1842) and a revisited list of the preserved specimens. Verhadelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Natuurkunde) 64: 1–44.

Newbery, J. (1753): A Historical Account of the Curiosities of London and Westminster. Bible and Sun, London.

Nowell, K., and Jackson, P. (1996): Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland.

O'Brien, S.J., Martenson, J.S., Packer, C., Herbst, L., De Vos, V., Joslin, P., Ott-Joslin, J., Wildt, D.E., and Bush, M. (1987): Biochemical genetic variation in geographic isolates of African and Asiatic lions. National Geographic Research 3: 114–124.

Ormsby, J. (1864): Autumn Rambles in North Africa. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, London.

Pease, A.E. (1899): The lion: in Algeria. In Great and Small Game of Africa (ed. H.A. Bryden), pp. 564–568. Rowland Ward Ltd., London.

Pease, A.E. (1915): The Book of the Lion. John Murray, London.

Pocock, R.I. (1936): Mammalia. In Natural History (ed. C.T. Regan), pp. 605–880. Ward, Lock and Co., London.

Schaller, G.B. (1972): The Serengeti Lion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Selous, F.C. (1908): African Nature Notes and Reminiscences. Macmillan, London.

Smuts, G.L., Anderson, J.L., and Austin, J.C. (1978): Age determination of the African lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Zoology 185: 115–146.

Smuts, G.L., Robinson, G.A., and Whyte, I.J. (1980): Comparative growth of wild male and female lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Zoology 190: 365–373.

Talbot, S.L., and Shields, G.F. (1996): Phylogeography of brown bears (Ursus arctos) of Alaska and paraphyly within the Ursidae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5: 477–494.

Temminck, C.J., and Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. (1827): Monographies de Mammalogie, Tome Premier. G. Dufour & E. d'Ocagne, Paris.

Vogt, C., and Specht, F. (1889): The Natural History of Animals. Blackie and Son, London.

Wentzel, J., Stephens, C., Johnson, W., Menotti-Raymond, M., Pecon-Slattery, J., Yuhki, N., Carrington, M., Quigley, H.B., Miquelle, D.G., Tilson, R., Manansang, J., Brady, G., Zhi, L., Wenshi, P., Shi-Qiang, H., Johnson, L., Sunquist, M., Karanth, K.U., and O'Brien, S.J. (1999): Subspecies of tigers: molecular assessment using `voucher specimens' of geographically traceable individuals. In Riding the Tiger (eds. J. Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson), pp. 40–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

West, P.M., and Packer, C. (2002): Sexual selection, temperature, and the lion's mane. Science 297: 1339–1343.

Nobuyuki Yamaguchi, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, U.K.; Brahim Haddane, Parc Zoologique National de Rabat, B.P. 4142, 12000 Temara, Morocco. Corresponding author: Nobuyuki Yamaguchi (Tel.: 01865–281521; Fax: 01865–271211; E-mail: ).

Table 1. Zoos which either keep or used to keep `royal' lions known to have exclusively originated from the collection of the King of Morocco. (`Year' and `From' indicate when and where the zoo first obtained the lions; `Discontinued' means that the last royal lion died or left the zoo in the year stated.)

Zoo Country Year From Comments

Rabat Morocco 1970 Royal Palace Active

Casablanca Morocco 1972 Rabat

Dvur Králové Czech Republic 1973 Rabat Discontinued 1999

Meknès Morocco 1974 Rabat

Lyon France 1975 Rabat

Washington U.S.A. 1976 Rabat Discontinued 1989

Frankfurt Germany 1977 Rabat Discontinued 1995

Havana Cuba 1977 Rabat

Leipzig Germany 1977 Rabat

Baton Rouge U.S.A. 1979 Washington Discontinued 1990

Dortmund Germany 1979 Leipzig

Olomouc Czech Republic 1979 Dvur Králové Active

Port Lympne U.K. 1980 Washington Active

Krefeld Germany 1981 Port Lympne Discontinued 1994

Vienna Austria 1981 Leipzig

Straubing Germany 1982 Dortmund Discontinued 1995

Gulf Breeze U.S.A. 1984 Baton Rouge

Madrid* Spain 1984 Washington Active

Basel Switzerland 1987 Dortmund Discontinued 1996

Cheyenne Mtn U.S.A. 1987 Washington Discontinued 1994

Cézallier France 1988 Krefeld

Cologne Germany 1988 Dortmund Discontinued 1997

Brno Czech Republic 1989 Dvur Králové

Halle Germany 1989 Leipzig Discontinued 1994

Stuttgart Germany 1994 Frankfurt

Bratislava Slovakia 1996 Brno Discontinued 1996

Ostrava Czech Republic 1997 Brno Discontinued 2000

Ambert France ? Lyon Parc Zool. du Bouy

Besançon France ? Lyon Parc Zool. de la Citadelle

Orcines France ? Lyon Parc Zool. des Dômes

Paris France ? Lyon Jardin des Plantes

Sigean France ? Lyon Réserve Africaine

*Although we have so far failed to trace them, Madrid Zoo may have obtained Royal lions before 1984 (M. González, personal communication).

Table 2. Traced lions which originated exclusively from the collection of the King of Morocco. (`Year' indicates the date, where known, to which each zoo's statistics relate.) Animals' categories (see above) were calculated based on the parents' categories. For example, if the father's category was 2 and the mother's was 1, then the cub's category was calculated as 1.5.

Country/Zoo Year Sex Birth Category Comments


Rabat 1998 m 1993 < 2 Breeding male

m 1995 < 2

m 1995 < 2

m 1997 < 2

m 1997 < 2

m 1997 < 2

m 1997 < 2

m 1997 < 2

f 1989 < 2

f 1989 < 2

f 1990 < 2

f 1990 < 2 f 1992 < 2

f 1993 < 2

f 1993 < 2

f 1993 < 2

f 1994 < 2

f 1994 < 2

f 1997 < 2

f 1997 < 2

Casablanca 1998 m 1993 < 2 Sindibad Zoo

f 1993 < 2 Sindibad Zoo

f 1993 < 2 Ainsebaa Zoo


Vienna 2002 m 2001 1 From Olomouc, 2002

f 2001 1 From Olomouc, 2002

Czech Republic

Brno 2000 m 1988 1

Olomouc 2001 m 1993 1 Breeding male

m 1999 1

m 1999 1 To Madrid, 2000

f 1990 1 Pregnant, January 2001

f 1999 1

f 1999 1


Cézallier 1998 m 1987 < 1.38

f 1987 < 1.38

Lyon 2001 m 1984 1.5

m 1990 1.5

f 1984 1.5

f 1990 1.5

Ambert – m 1986 1.5 Failed to contact

f 1986 1.5

Besançon – f 1981 1.5 Failed to contact

Orcines – m 1977 1.5 Failed to contact

m 1977 1.5

f 1977 1.5

Paris – m 1980 1.5 Failed to contact

f 1980 1.5

Sigean – m 1981 1.5 Failed to contact

f 1981 1.5

f 1981 1.5


Dortmund 1998 m 1990 1

f 1987 1

f 1987 1

f 1988 1

Leipzig 1998 m 1981 1

f 1985 1

Stuttgart 2000 m 1985 1

f 1985 1

f 1985 1


Madrid* 1998 m 1979 1.5 From Washington, 1984

m 1997 ? To Olomouc, 1999

f 1979 1.5 From Washington, 1984

f 1979 ?

f 1986 ?

f 1987 ?

f 1987 ?

United Kingdom

Port Lympne 2001 m 1980 1.25

m 1994 < 2 Breeding male

m 1999 < 1.63

f 1982 1.13

f 1988 1.25 Breeding female (Jade)

f 1988 1.25

f 1999 < 1.63

f 1999 < 1.63

United States

Gulf Breeze – m 1977 1.5 Failed to contact

f 1977 1.5


Havana – – – – Failed to contact

*We have so far failed to trace some Madrid lions' breeding records.

* * *



Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation is a private facility owned by His Excellency Sheikh Saoud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al Thani. It is situated in the heart of Qatar, an independent state in the Middle East. It began as an ordinary and unsupervised collection of common wildlife species, of a kind often found in wealthy Arab countries. Status and prestige are frequently the objectives of such collections. In the case of Al Wabra, things have changed within the last few years. The first steps from an ordinary holding to a successful breeding centre for endangered species have been accomplished.


Al Wabra was founded by Sheikh Saoud's father, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Ali Al Thani, almost 30 years ago. He later handed the facility on to his elder sons Sheikh Hassan and Sheikh Khalid Al Thani. They were the first owners of Al Wabra to organise expeditions to East Africa to catch gazelles and antelopes of various species. Up to that time gazelles had been the main animals kept at Al Wabra.

Six years ago, the current owner, Sheikh Saoud Al Thani, the youngest son, took over, and from this time onwards things have changed. He started not only to improve the existing facilities, but also to built up new, bigger and better-arranged enclosures for his animals. These improvements are still in progress. Five years ago, he employed the first Europeans to organise animal care. Since August 2000 an international team of two veterinarians, two curators, two biologists and 35 animal keepers have run the place (the number is steadily increasing).

The facility

The area is about 2.5 km2. The heart of Al Wabra is like an oasis, a green place with palms, alfalfa fields, many different fruit trees, etc. In this area are kept the more delicate animals, such as all the different bird species, cheetahs, smaller cats and some ungulates. The greater part of Al Wabra consists of ordinary desert land; in this area the huge enclosures for most of the gazelles and antelopes are situated.

Currently we keep around 2,000 animals of 103 species (see Table 1). There is an ongoing effort to improve the design and layout of enclosures by creating conditions more appropriate for the various species and more conducive to the proper organisation of the collection. This is resulting in much-reduced levels of stress, fighting and injuries due to herd panic, as well as more successful breeding. The cruel individual holding of two great apes in isolation, for instance, was ended a year ago. The gorilla was sent to Prague Zoo, where he has become part of the EEP, and the chimpanzee has gone to a chimpanzee orphanage in Zambia.

For heat-sensitive birds, like birds of paradise, macaws, cockatoos, umbrella birds and pheasants, there are huge aviaries with air-conditioned indoor rooms and computer-controlled irrigation systems, connected to a fresh-water osmosis unit. Recently a large walk-through free-flight aviary (75 m ΄ 30 m ΄ 7 m) has been finished. In its rainforest atmosphere, the aviary accommodates bird of paradise males, Somali starlings, pheasant pigeons, turacos and cranes. Another similar aviary is still under construction, where it is planned to keep flamingos, scarlet ibis and macaws.

Most of the ungulates are well adapted to the Qatari climate, but for the sensitive and very famous beira antelope, stables with air-conditioned rooms are essential. The other species are either housed in large holding pens or in smaller breeding enclosures. Because there has been less and less demand for surplus ungulate males, two bachelor pens were established a year ago, one of approximately 90,000 m2 in area and the other of around 70,000 m2. These are important genetic pools and are also attractive for visitors.

Breeding successes

Al Wabra has been successful in both natural breeding and rearing and also hand-rearing of valuable and endangered species: greater and king birds of paradise, green-naped pheasant pigeon, chestnut-bellied sand grouse, beira antelope, Speke's, red-fronted and Pelzeln's gazelles, gerenuk, sand cat and leopard tortoise, as well as other common zoo mammals and birds. In the important, but still young, collection of parrots, the first pairs have just laid their first eggs.

Conservation and scientific research

Al Wabra not only represents a great collection of valuable species, it is also involved in a number of conservation projects. In Senkele, Ethiopia, for example, an emergency project to protect the highly endangered Swayne's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei) was started in 2001. A lot of scientists and antelope specialists have been here, and a number of scientific publications are based on work done at Al Wabra. The curators and veterinarians are also involved in a range of scientific research, for example taxonomic studies through DNA sampling.

This collection is not open to the public, but that does not mean that guests are not welcome here at Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation.

Dr Sven and Catrin Hammer, P.O. Box 7935, Doha, State of Qatar (E-mail: ).

Table 1. Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation species list.

Common Name Scientific Name


Arabian toad Bufo arabica

Horned frog Ceratophrys ornata

Poison-arrow frog Dendrobates auratus

Poison-arrow frog Dendrobates azureus

Poison-arrow frog Dendrobates tinctorius


Florida soft-shelled turtle Trionyx ferox

Leopard tortoise Geochelone pardalis

Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus


Blue peafowl Pavo cristatus

Bird of paradise, greater Paradisaea apoda

Bird of paradise, king Cicinnurus regius

Bird of paradise, lesser Paradisaea minor

Bird of paradise, magnificent Cicinnurus magnificus

Bird of paradise, red Paradisaea rubra

Bird of paradise, twelve-wired Seleucidis melanoleuca

Bowerbird, flamed Sericulus aureus ardens

Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus

Bulwer's pheasant Lophura bulweri

Cockatoo, gang-gang Callocephalon fimbriatum

Cockatoo, red-tailed Calyptorhynchus banksii

Cockatoo, salmon-crested Cacatua moluccensis

Cockatoo, short-billed Calyptorhynchus baudini

Cockatoo, yellow-tailed Calyptorhynchus funereus

Corella, Tanimbar Cacatua goffini

Crane, demoiselle Anthropoides virgo

Crane, Sudan crowned Balearica pavonina ceciliae

Crane, wattled Bugeranus carunculatus

Crested bustard Lophotis ruficrista gindiana

Flamingo, Caribbean Phoenicopterus ruber ruber

Flamingo, greater Phoenicopterus ruber roseus

Golden conure Aratinga guarouba

Goose, red-breasted Branta ruficollis

Guineafowl, helmeted Numida meleagris galeata

Guineafowl, Somali Numida meleagris somaliensis

Guineafowl, vulturine Acryllium vulturinum

Kea parrot Nestor notabilis

Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae

Lanner falcon Falco biarmicus

Long-wattled umbrellabird Cephalopterus penduliger

Macaw, blue-and-yellow Ara ararauna

Macaw, blue-headed Ara couloni

Macaw, blue-throated Ara glaucogularis

Macaw, hyacinthine Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus

Macaw, Spix's Cyanopsitta spixii

Ostrich, red-necked Struthio c. camelus

Pelican, great white Pelecanus onocrotalus

Pelican, pink-backed Pelecanus rufescens

Pesquet's parrot Psittrichas fulgidus

Pigeon, green-naped pheasant Otidiphaps n. nobilis

Pigeon, speckled Columba guinea

Sand grouse, chestnut-bellied Pterocles exustus ellioti

Sand grouse, crowned Pterocles c. coronatus

Sand grouse, spotted Pterocles senegallus

Scarlet ibis Eudocimus ruber

Spoonbill, African Platalea alba

Spoonbill, roseate Platalea ajaja

Starling, Fischer's Spreo fischeri

Starling, royal Cosmopsarus regius

Starling, superb Spreo superbus

Stork, marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus

Stork, saddlebill Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis

Stork, shoebill Balaeniceps rex

Stork, yellow-billed Mycteria ibis

Swan, Bewick's Cygnus columbianus bewickii

Violaceous turaco Musophaga violacea

White-bellied go-away bird Corythaixoides leucogaster

Yellow-necked francolin Francolinus leucoscepus


Addax Addax nasomaculatus

African wild cat Felis libyca

Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx

Arabian sand cat Felis margarita harrisoni

Beira antelope Dorcatragus megalotis

Beisa oryx Oryx beisa

Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra

Caracal Felis caracal

Cheetah, king Acinonyx jubatus

Cheetah, Somali Acinonyx jubatus

Crested porcupine Hystrix cristata

Gazelle, chinkara Gazella bennettii

Gazelle, Grant's Gazella granti

Gazelle, idmi Gazella gazella cora

Gazelle, misri dorcas Gazella dorcas massaesyla

Gazelle, Pelzeln's Gazella [dorcas] pelzelni

Gazelle, red-fronted Gazella rufifrons

Gazelle, rheem Gazella subgutturosa marica

Gazelle, Saudi (afri) Gazella saudiya

Gazelle, Soemmerring's Gazella soemmerringii

Gazelle, Speke's Gazella spekei

Gazelle, goitred Gazella s. subgutturosa

Gazelle, Sudan dorcas Gazella dorcas isabella

Gazelle, Thomson's Gazella thomsonii

Gazelle, Erlanger's Gazella gazella erlangeri

Gazelle, Yemeni Gazella gazella ssp.

Gerenuk Litocranius walleri

Impala Aepyceros melampus

Mouflon, Isfahan Ovis orientalis isfahanica

Mouflon, Laristan Ovis orientalis laristanica

Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus

Nubian ibex Capra ibex

Phillip's dik-dik Madoqua phillipsi

Silver-backed jackal Canis mesomelas

Swamp cat Felis chaus

Wild goat Capra aegagrus

* * *



About 12 miles from Cork City on the south coast of Ireland lies Fota Island. The island belongs to University College Cork, and also contains the recently refurbished Fota House with its impressive arboretum, as well as an international 18-hole golf course. In 1982 the university made 70 acres (28 ha) of mixed parkland, woodland and lakes available to the Zoological Society of Ireland to develop a `country cousin' to its principal collection in Dublin. With its own railway station (a 15-minute journey on the Cork–Cobh line), the park now receives 250,000 visitors annually – that's roughly equivalent to the population of Cork City, which shows how well supported it has been locally since it opened in 1983.

I call it Ireland's `secret zoo' as it is far less well known than the long-established Belfast and Dublin Zoos, but `zoo' is a term that does not sit comfortably with the ethos and atmosphere of Fota Wildlife Park. It takes its conservation and education roles seriously, financially supporting five projects worldwide, and chooses the species it displays not on the basis of their `drawing power', but on their conservation status and ability to blend in with the atmosphere of the park.

There are effectively two parts to Fota. The first section is a series of very large, gently undulating paddocks. Here are kept, in separate paddocks, breeding groups of guanaco and Kafue lechwe and a pair of European bison, while the largest enclosure of over 20 acres (8+ ha) contains a splendid group of Baringo giraffe (11 at the moment, including three young born this year), breeding groups of scimitar-horned oryx (over 30 births recorded), Grant's zebra and pairs of ostrich, emu and rhea. Free-range mara are often seen here also. This paddock is delineated by a small pile of stones and a few strands of wire, giving the impression of being almost completely open. From certain angles, when the giraffes are against the backdrop of the neighbouring bay, you could almost be on an African lakeshore! Also in this section of the park are enclosures for Brazilian tapir and red panda, and an incubation centre.

The second part of the park is a mixture of woodlands and tidal pools. Here the large collection of waterfowl species can be found, mostly on the central lake. There is also a flock of young Chilean flamingos in a tidal pool in an enclosed area with Colombian black spider monkeys. As the pool is tidal, the birds can supplement their rations by catching shrimps and other invertebrates which come in with the tide. A group of Humboldt's penguins share land and water with Cape Barren geese, other birds and a family of capybara.

Birds apart, this section is dominated by the primate collection, housed on large and very well furnished islands. Most of these have extensive natural vegetation as well as ropes and frames. All except the white-faced saki monkeys have 24-hour access to their islands. There are three species of gibbon (agile, lar and siamang), four lemur taxa (black, Mayotte brown, and both black-and-white and red ruffed), black-and-white colobus, four `retired' female mandrills, and a prolific group of lion-tailed macaques who share their very large island with a colony of prairie dogs. Consideration is being given to adding one or two more islands, partly to be able to rotate the animals and give vegetation a chance to regenerate, and partly with a view to exhibiting a rare langur species. A high point of a visit here is watching the primates at feeding time, when keepers wade over and onto all of the islands.

Also in this area are enclosures for harbour seals and white-tailed sea eagle. There is hope that a reintroduction programme for this eagle, extinct in Ireland for 100 years, will get under way soon, and the display at Fota serves to raise awareness that extinction is not just happening in far-distant lands. There are other native species thriving in and around the park, and if you are lucky you may see, for example, red squirrels and cormorants. There is a long-established heronry behind the cheetah enclosures.

The cheetah is the species that Fota is probably best known for breeding. Between 1984 and 2000 over 170 births were recorded here, and there are currently 11 adults at the park, in four enclosures. Recently, however, there has been an unexpected hiatus in breeding, and there are plans to transfer animals between other collections in order to try to stimulate renewed success with this beautiful animal.

Many people's memories of Fota will be of an area of woods and clearings where a number of species roam freely. There are great grey kangaroos, Bennett's wallabies and more mara at ground level, macaws in the trees and ring-tailed lemurs and squirrel monkeys to be discovered wherever they may be (even the squirrel monkeys occasionally descend to the ground). The more patient you are the more the animals will reveal themselves. Most are breeding successfully under these free conditions. There is a real Garden of Eden feel to this part of the park, even if these species are very familiar and would elicit little excitement when viewed under normal zoo conditions. And the animals do not come as close to visitors in order to beg for food as you might expect. The park operates a very strict no-feeding policy in order to discourage begging behaviour by the animals (although the native birds and peacocks around the coffee shop have obviously not been told about this!).

This is a wildlife park with few `mega' mammals. If there were more of them they might overshadow the excellent way those mammals which are here are presented. Barriers are minimal or non-existent and the vast majority of visitors seem to respect how close they can get to the animals, if the animals choose to be close to visitors. You might normally consider a couple of hours as being all that is required to see just 30 mammal species in 70 acres, but I could only tear myself away after four hours because it was closing time! Most zoos have a few weak points, exhibits that are really not up to standard or areas that haven't been thought out very well. Fota doesn't. Ireland's Secret Zoo is in some charming ways also its best.

[Fota Wildlife Park's website is at .]

Ray Cimino, 13 Hyacinth Street, North Strand, Dublin 3, Ireland.

* * *




In the British Isles, there are estimated to be around 300 animal collections which maintain exotic species on exhibit to the public (Vaughan and Whitbread, 2002). This figure includes not only traditional zoos, but aquaria, bird gardens, butterfly houses, rescue centres, and farm parks with exotic species. In addition, over 375 Dangerous Wild Animal licenses were issued to private individuals during 2000 alone (Greenwood, Cusdin and Radford, 2001).

The body with the highest profile amongst British zoological collections is undoubtedly the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Britain and Ireland. The Federation consists of approximately 55 member institutions which outwardly work together and which are all open to the public – a prerequisite of membership. The private keepers' equivalent of the Zoo Federation, if one could be said to exist, is the National Association of Private Animal Keepers (NAPAK). NAPAK acts as a union and forum for animal keepers but, unlike the Federation, makes no attempt to record the species kept by its members.

The Federation promotes its image as a single zoological collection with each of its members constituting a branch. An annual `Mammal Inventory' is produced for members, and the circulation of animals, as recommended by studbook keepers and EEPs, is not only encouraged, but facilitated by the distribution of this publication.

Forty-eight British zoological collections currently participate in the International Species Information System (ISIS), a global animal inventory of member collections. Amongst British collections there are Federation members who do not contribute to ISIS and ISIS members who choose not to join the Federation.

The problem

It is a common, but incorrect, assumption that the Federation of Zoological Gardens encompasses all of Britain's `serious' zoological collections. Whilst we can suppose that all members of the Federation are reputable collections, it would be wrong to assume that every respected British collection is a member, or that non-members are not `serious' about their work. Indeed, the Federation represents a mere handful of those collections with genuine objectives and, collectively, makes up less than 20% of all public collections in this country. This is without taking into account those collections in private hands.

Of Britain's many public collections, very few are open enough to publish an annual inventory, whilst others do not even produce one for internal use. Collections which fall into the latter category only contribute to the ignorance of their colleagues, and zoo professionals and enthusiasts alike can appreciate the frustration caused by this lack of information.

The Federation's annual inventory has its uses, but it should be remembered that this publication has limited scope and deals with only a fraction of the mammals which are kept in this country. Beyond the realms of the Federation, there is an extensive network of lesser-known collections which are often overlooked.

The relationships between collections are often disjointed, even within the sphere of public collections. The reasons for this are varied, but basically come down to (1) a serious lack of knowledge amongst some animal keepers of the status of captive animals elsewhere in the country; and (2) the intentional reluctance of many zoo authorities to cooperate with potential competitors or collections with different policies and priorities.

The International Zoo Yearbook has for many years provided an overview of international stock, but restricts its listings to `rare' species. An added problem is the delay in publication, which results in data which is often several years out of date by the time it is made available.

Even by amalgamating the statistics of ISIS, the Federation inventory and the Yearbook, the full picture of Britain's captive animal stocks cannot be appreciated. It is with this in mind that the census is being attempted.


In 2002 it was decided that an effort should be made to bring together the animal-keeping community. A united front is unquestionably desirable, and in the British Captive Mammal Census, it is proposed to bring together the broad spectrum of animal-keeping parties in this country – Federation zoos, non-Federation zoos and private keepers. The aims of the project are as follows:

(1) To encourage cooperation and freedom of information between private and public collections;

(2) To enhance knowledge amongst all animal keepers regarding the status of captive mammals in the British Isles; and

(3) To promote a better circulation of limited stocks for the benefit of breeding programmes and for the prevention of inbreeding in otherwise unmanaged populations.

The census will be presented as a simple list to assist animal keepers. The onus will be on the keepers themselves to take advantage of these statistics in whatever way will best benefit their collections.


A prototype of the census has been in progress during 2002 and, from the results gleaned, it has been decided that the model used should be as follows:

– All known keepers of mammals will be contacted with a request to provide a full mammal stocklist for 31 December 2002 (some collections may be unable to provide figures for this date; in these instances, an explanatory note will be included in the final document). The stocklist should be restricted to `animals held on site' as, for the purpose of this survey, the ownership of individual animals is not relevant.

– Once received, the data from each stocklist will be entered into a database which will hold data to a subspecific level. The database will allow reports to be produced on either a collection-by-collection or a taxonomic basis.

– Wilson and Cole (2000) has been chosen as an authoritative mammal taxonomy at the species level. All scientific names will be entered into the database using this classification (notes will be added where an alternative scientific name has been given).

– Private keepers often wish to remain so and anonymity is their prerogative. Excepting these individuals, addresses and contact details will be listed for each collection. The compilers of the census will act as a contact point for any participants who wish to remain anonymous.

– Provided that a reasonable level of cooperation is received, it is intended to publish the first British Captive Mammal Census as early as possible in 2003 to maximise the relevance of the data.


In the first instance, it was decided to survey mammals only. This restriction was placed because of limits on time and resources. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates are widely held in private hands as `companion animals', and their true numbers would prove impossible to trace. The keeping of exotic mammals, on the other hand, is limited by legal and financial factors, so a comprehensive census is potentially achievable. The majority of mammal species are classified by law as `dangerous wild animals', and their keepers are therefore more accountable, a fact that should aid the monitoring of their numbers in captivity. If this initial survey proves to be a success, then the scope of the project may be widened in future.

What should be classed as an `exotic' animal is debatable. For the purpose of this survey, those species which are commonly domesticated in the British Isles (including farmed and companion animals) will be excluded. `Exotic domestics' such as camels will be included, as will the wild progenitors of domestic animals, such as bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus) and mouflon (Ovis [musimon] orientalis). Exceptions to these rules will be made for species such as American bison (Bison bison) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) where they are maintained in an agricultural setting. Native species will be included as far as is reasonable, though the problems with this group can be appreciated when considering wildlife rescue centres and injured animals taken into private homes by well-meaning individuals.


Vaughan, R., and Whitbread, S. (2002): Index of extant zoological collections in the British Isles. (Unpublished.)

Greenwood, A.G., Cusdin, P.A., and Radford, M. (2001): Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. International Zoo Veterinary Group.

Wilson, D.E., and Cole, F.R. (2000): Common Names of Mammals of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.

Further information

All British keepers of exotic mammals (according to the criteria laid out above) are invited to contact the authors with comments and suggestions, or to register their interest in participating in the census: The British Captive Mammal Census, 9 Melrose Gardens, Wellington, Telford, Shropshire, TF1 2BH (E-mail: ).

* * *


ELEPHANT SLAVES AND PAMPERED PARROTS: EXOTIC ANIMALS IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PARIS by Louise E. Robbins. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2002. xiv + 349 pp., 31 illus., hardback. ISBN 0-8018-6753-3. £33.00 or US$49.95.

MENAGERIE DES KAISERS, ZOO DER WIENER – 250 JAHRE TIERGARTEN SCHÖNBRUNN edited by Mitchell G. Ash and Lothar Dittrich. Pichler, Vienna, 2002. 480 pp., illus., hardback. ISBN 3–85431–269–5. #34.90 (c. £22 or US$35).

We like to think of zoos as a feature of modern society, and Vienna's Tiergarten Schönbrunn is as modern a zoo as Europe currently has to offer. The old-fashioned name (`the animal garden at the pretty fountain') suggests that the zoo may have some years behind it, and indeed, the heart of the zoo with its baroque pastel-yellow buildings matching nearby Schönbrunn Palace, are genuine. Disney had no part in building them at all. Tiergarten Schönbrunn is celebrating its 250th anniversary this year, making it almost 80 years older than the first zoo to be called a zoo (London's, of course). Although now the world's oldest surviving institution exhibiting living animals, it was not even the first menagerie in Vienna. As noted only recently in these pages (see `Lost menageries' in I.Z.N. 49:3, pp. 151–163), Tiergarten Schönbrunn was not really the first of anything, but one of the very last of a long line of mediaeval through baroque menageries built by and for princes and kings. In Schönbrunn's case it was the German (Holy Roman) emperor Franz I Stephan who decided to delight his wife Maria Theresia and himself with a new menagerie on the site of one destroyed in 1683 by the Turks. (As a consolation, the Turks at the time did first introduce coffee and thus cafés to Vienna, a feature of the city presumably more famous than its zoo.) The original name of the Tiergarten, Ménagerie zu Schönbrunn, and its basic design, an octagonal pavilion with observation windows on all sides looking out at radiating paddocks with mews at the back forming an outer ring, were modelled after a menagerie established some 90 years earlier at Vincennes near Paris by Louis XIV.

The Vincennes menagerie, which survived for 130 years before being ransacked and then dissolved during the French Revolution, has been the subject of many histories over the centuries, albeit mostly in French. In the edited version of her Ph.D. dissertation in the history of science at the University of Wisconsin, Louise Robbins too looks at the menagerie and then beyond it to offer a lively glimpse of 18th-century Paris's infatuation with exotic animals. Hers is a genuine labour of love, not merely synthesizing what has already been published, but the result of an apparently exhaustive culling of Parisian archives. Diaries, logbooks, letters, broadsheets and inventories, perhaps more tolerable to wade through when Paris is awaiting one after hours, rewarded her (and us) with a picture of a pre-Revolutionary Paris far more animal than many might have imagined. What exotic animals 18th-century Parisians saw and owned, how they got there, what the locals made of them, how they influenced fashion, are all well described in Louise Robbins's fascinating book, the first volume of a new series entitled `Animals, History, Culture' edited by Harriet Ritvo.

The guild of what would now be called pet-shop owners (in English, anyway), the oiseleurs, held privileges dating back to 1402. Despite the term, they sold not only birds but monkeys and other small animals as well. During the 18th century there were between 25 and 50 masters of the guild in any given year, most of them apparently concentrated in an area near Notre-Dame cathedral where one can stumble upon a pet shop even today. `Pampered parrots' were among the most popular of sale objects, and a French ship sailing in from the East or West Indies could have 400 on board. A seaman might earn the equivalent of three to six months' wages for one healthy parrot that survived the voyage and the subsequent journey to Paris. The avifauna of the French Antilles suffered enormously as a result, and parrots apparently disappeared from Martinique by the 1750s.

Animals on board were not always popular with the captain. Precious water and food had to be shared with them, and parrots especially could be quite noisy. Giant tortoises were extremely modest in their requirements, but two tigers imported from India in 1770, for example, consumed between them 400 sheep on their voyage to France. Although the Paris oiseleurs could only hope that the market would sustain the prices they had to pay for acquiring animals as well as guarantee their profits, the king could be more demanding of the navy and the ships of the Compagnie des Indes with its royal privilege. In the seven years between 1687 and 1694, for example, the menagerie at Versailles received from the Near East alone over 900 animals, including 100 ostriches. The menagerie had its detractors – even in the 18th century, many naturalists found that exotic animals in captivity must necessarily have ruined characters useless for science. Moralists compared captive animals to captive Negroes – hence the `elephant slaves' in Louise Robbins's title. Anyway, by the late 18th century exotic animals could be viewed in central Paris in travelling menageries, at fairs and even in private homes, making Versailles – a four-hour return journey – less desirable as an excursion site. The successor to Versailles would be established at the end of the century in (or at least near) the heart of Paris in the Jardin des Plantes, not as a royal menagerie but as a centre of science, associated with the new national museum of natural history. Vienna's menagerie at Schönbrunn, on the other hand, would remain imperial until 1918 (and, incidentally, free until 1921).

More has presumably been written on Tiergarten Schönbrunn than on the menagerie at Versailles or even its successor at the Jardin des Plantes, but nothing as interesting, comprehensive and handsomely illustrated as Menagerie des Kaisers, Zoo der Wiener (`The Emperor's Menagerie, Zoo of the Viennese'). Although published to accompany a special exhibition on the history of the zoo held this summer at Vienna's Natural History Museum, it is not a catalogue, even if most of the drawings, paintings, plans and old photographs used to illustrate the volume were on exhibit. Twenty experts in various fields of the history of zoos, or at least that of Vienna, have contributed eight chapters covering the development of Tiergarten Schönbrunn in general, in a roughly chronological order, and nine essays on specific aspects of the zoo's progress. Even those who have already read everything published to date on the world's oldest zoo will find things new and interesting to read in this anniversary volume. Harro Strehlow, an occasional contributor to I.Z.N., discloses, for example, how the famous (in central Europe) 19th-century naturalist Alfred Edmund Brehm hoped to become Schönbrunn's director. Christa Riedl-Dorn elaborates on expeditions organized by or for the zoo to acquire animals abroad, the first of which was sent out in 1754 to the Caribbean and Guianas. Four authors collaborated to write on the history of veterinary medicine at Schönbrunn. Those hoping, however, that an American coeditor – Mitchell Ash is professor of modern history at Vienna University – means an English-language summary will be disappointed. But even if one reads no German, the fair price and wealth of illustrations make Menagerie des Kaisers, Zoo der Wiener a real must on the coffee table of every zoo enthusiast. A pity for those who cannot read it, though.

Herman Reichenbach

ELEPHANTS I'LL NEVER FORGET: A KEEPER'S LIFE AT WHIPSNADE AND LONDON ZOO by John Weatherhead. The Book Castle, Dunstable, U.K., 2002. x + 182 pp., paperback. ISBN 1–903747–16–3. £9.99.

John Weatherhead's diverting autobiography charts his life as a zoo keeper. He left school at fifteen and commenced work in the pheasantry of London Zoo, before moving on to work with penguins, birds of prey and a variety of carnivores in the old North Mammal House. From there he moved on to Whipsnade, in 1968, and began to work with elephants – animals with whom he would form the closest bond and enjoy his best years. His time at Whipsnade was interrupted by a spell at Qatar's Doha Zoo, where he was assistant manager as the new zoo was established by London staff. He resigned from Whipsnade in the 1990s, for reasons that are alluded to but never fully explained, and has since worked occasionally as a freelance elephant transporter.

There is an intrinsic interest to be found in Weatherhead's tale: from his early days, as an old-fashioned keeper in a smart outfit with a peaked cap, in trouble with his superiors for eating the bananas which should have been going into the birds' dishes, through his time at Whipsnade as the philosophy of elephant keeping changed. Occasionally the reader may find himself wishing for the bigger picture to be discussed in greater detail: we hear almost nothing of the various crises that have faced the Zoological Society of London in recent years, for example, and when Jumbo, a male African elephant at Whipsnade, is destroyed because the zoo does not have the facilities to keep him there is not a great deal of contemplation from Weatherhead, beyond a rather brief comment that this was a `sad situation'. Similarly, it might have been more interesting to include fuller accounts of the zoos to which he travelled in Burma and Japan than to describe in such detail his aeroplane journeys and the quality of his hotels.

One of the book's strengths is in the large number of pictures it includes. Many of these are of the old London Zoo, while Whipsnade's elephants are also heavily featured.

Readers expecting a significant contribution to zoological garden literature, or hoping to learn a great deal about elephant husbandry, will, perhaps, be disappointed by Elephants I'll Never Forget, but those who are happy simply to find a pleasing and charming memoir written by an old-fashioned keeper will find this a book worth purchasing.

John Tuson

* * *


Amsterdam Zoo (Artis), the Netherlands

For more than a year, the Artis insectarium has been using a macro-video camera set to show the smallest of its creatures. The animals to be shown via the video set are placed in a terrarium next to a television screen, and the camera's flexible arm is used to position the camera directly above them. Educational information completes the presentation. A new theme or animal species is shown regularly, but the choice of animals to be presented is largely determined by their movements and therefore the possibility of keeping them in focus under the camera. If the species is small and active, many individuals need to be shown to ensure that at least one is always in focus.

A nest of Mexican red-knee bird-eating spiders (Brachypelma smithi) made a very special presentation. A clutch of 200 second-stage nymphs was first placed under the camera, followed by about 30 spiderlings in a small terrarium. These young `tarantulas' were very visible and drew the attention of many visitors. The original egg-sac as well as external skeletons of a male and female spider were also shown.

Next, we added a cuvette to the camera set, in which all kinds of small aquatic arthropods can be shown. Daphnia, mayfly larvae and mosquito larvae hop across the television screen in the zoo's `smallest aquarium'. Many people only begin to realize what lives in the lakes and rivers around them when they view this presentation.

Giant orbweb spiders (Nephila sp.) and a scorpion still carrying offspring on its back were also shown with the camera. These two species both had a favourite spot in the enclosure and were not too mobile, so the camera needed to be focused only once or twice a day. Silverfish (Thysanura sp.) were shown in large numbers together with a page from an old book they had attacked.

We plan to show our leaf-cutter ants (Atta cephalotis) with the camera, enabling visitors to peek into the ant nests. We are also investigating the possibility of connecting the camera to an old microscope so that diverse single-cell microorganisms can be shown in the future.

Eugène Bruins in EAZA News No. 39 (July–September 2002)

Fundación Neotrópico, Canary Islands, Spain

For the first time in the world, the Canary Islands government, together with Fundación Neotrópico, have been able to breed in captivity the Canarian spotted lizard (Gallotia intermedia). It was as recently as 1996 that the naturalist Efrain Hernández discovered this endemic species new to science in Los Gigantes, a coastal escarpment complex in the north-west of Tenerife. Since then, Fundación Neotrópico, the only place where these endangered lizards are held in captivity, has had custody of the living holotype and three paratype specimens used to describe the taxon. The last census in the wild showed an estimated population of less than 300 individuals. This means that, together with their relatives the giant lizards of La Gomera island (G. gomerana) – less than 20 of which remain alive – they are among the most endangered species of lizard in the world. In the late summer of 2001, one of the females laid four eggs, but they were not fertile.

On 16 August 2002, the other female laid two eggs, one of which was broken. The other was immediately put in an incubator at 28.8° C and 80% relative humidity, and on 21 October the egg successfully hatched. This was the first time a newly-born Canarian spotted lizard has been seen and photographed – the wild specimens found are always older individuals. With this animal, Fundación Neotrópico will continue the research programmes on ethology, physiology, diet and captive management which were started with the adults in 1996.

Jaime A. de Urioste, Vice-President and Research Coordinator, Fundación Neotrópico, reported in the on-line herpetological newspaper HerpDigest, 10 Nov. 2002 (

John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

At feeding time, they wiggle excitedly, pop their heads out of the water and gently nudge each other to get the fish that staff hand-feed them. Then they push their perpetually smiling faces forward so that the trainers can rub their big round heads.

These aren't the belugas. These are sharks, four- to five-footers [1.2–1.5 m] who will soon take up residence in Shedd's new Wild Reef exhibit. But, says aquarist Rachel Wilborn, `these zebra sharks [Stegostoma fasciatum] are like puppy dogs.' Not so their neighbors and distant relatives, the wobbegongs (Orectolobus ornatus and O. japonicus), which are known as `toe biters' in Australia. The most aggressive of Shedd's sharks, wobbegongs bite first and don't let go to ask questions later. Incidents usually involve incautious waders or divers who tread on these well-camouflaged bottom-dwellers.

That is just a taste of the diversity that will be found in the 400,000-gallon [1,500,000-liter] shark habitat in Wild Reef, the permanent exhibit opening in the new south wing of the aquarium in 2003. It will also house whitetip reef sharks (Triaenodon obesus), sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) and blacktip reef sharks (C. melanopterus) – 30 to 35 sharks in all – along with hundreds of brightly colored and boldly patterned groupers, trigger-fishes, wrasses, jacks and other Indo-Pacific reef fishes.

The sharks, however, will be the main attractions, and thanks to a 50-foot-long [15-m], five-inch-thick [125-mm] acrylic window that begins at the floor and arches 12 feet [3.65 m] overhead, guests will have a dizzying view of them. `The blacktips like to hang out in the upper water column, especially when it's dark,' says Wilborn. `During the day they come down into the lower water column.' At any time, these sleek, taut sharks will zoom through the pool, in part because it is the way they hunt, but also because they are obligate `ram ventilators' – they must keep swimming, literally ramming water across their gills, to breathe.

Like room-mates working different shifts, when the blacktips leave their night-time post in the upper waters, the sandbars will rise from slowly roaming the bottom to take their place. Sandbars look like your `true' shark, with a high first dorsal fin and eye-catching teeth, but they are not especially aggressive. Staking out the middle waters will be the whitetip reef sharks. Like the wobbegongs and zebras, but unlike the blacktips and sandbars, they can remain stationary for stretches of time because they're able to pump water across their gills by opening and closing their mouths.

`It's going to be a really nice array,' says Wilborn. `People will see sharks at all levels.' Except at feeding time, that is – then they'll be swarming overhead. `We're going to be feeding right above where the window arches over people's heads.' To maintain order among five species with different feeding strategies, from frenzy (the blacktips) to wiggling (the zebras, which naturally squirm into reef crevices in search of fish and shellfish), all of the sharks are being trained, using the same methods developed for the belugas and dolphins. Just as a dolphin is cued to swim to a feeding station when shown her individual shape, or target, three of the shark species have already learned to identify and swim to a specific shape. Wilborn says that sharks can recognize color and shape. `But to what extent, we aren't sure,' she adds, `so we use both. And we use color combinations with high contrast.' The whitetips respond to a red plus sign with white stripes, the blacktips go into pre-feeding frenzy over a green-and-black-striped rectangle, and the zebras have learned to come to a black circle. As well as separating them for feeding, this enables aquarists to move groups from one section of the huge habitat to another, useful when divers are cleaning, or to direct the sharks into the adjacent isolation pool for physical exams.

`We're limited in what we can do in training the blacktips, because they have to keep on the move, they don't want to be touched, and they get spooked easily,' says Wilborn. `The zebras are the easiest to train – they actually follow a buoy, and have to touch it to get their food.' The zebras respond not only to edible rewards but also to tactile ones: they like to have their noses rubbed. `You can't do it with every shark, obviously, but these guys [actually one male and two females] are very easy to handle and work with.' She draws the line at tongue scratching, which delights those other big smiling marine animals, the belugas. `The zebra sharks have great dispositions. But they do have big sharp teeth.'

Abridged from Karen Furnweger in WaterShedd Vol. 23, No. 4 (Autumn 2002)

Knoxville Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A.

On 14 May, zoo staff celebrated the first successful hatching of a Madagascar flat-tailed tortoise (Pyxis planicauda) in a U.S. zoo. Breeding efforts have been underway for this species since 1993, when Knoxville joined forces with the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx Zoo) to establish a cooperative breeding program. Although infertility among females has been a major problem in this and other programs for the species, incubation techniques may also play an important role – researchers have discovered that temperature changes rather than a constant incubation temperature may be essential for egg development.

Due to habitat destruction and intense commercial collection, the flat-tailed tortoise has become critically endangered in recent years. At one time it was extremely rare in captivity, but currently 22.32.1 captive individuals are reported in the North American regional studbook.

AZA Communiqué (October 2002)

Loro Parque, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain

In August we acquired two pairs of Josephine's lorikeets (Charmosyna josefinae) from a German breeder, increasing the number of taxa held here to 338. We were also able to integrate a pair of triton cockatoos (Cacatua galerita triton) from a private holder who donated his birds to the Foundation, as well as two female Roberts's parakeets (Bolborhynchus aurifrons robertsi), which were kindly donated by Mr Hodel, a Swiss breeder.

A very special breeding result this month was our first breeding of the Morotai yellow-backed lory (Lorius garrulus morotaianus). We hold all three subspecies of chattering lory (L. garrulus); the Morotai differs from the others because its back is red instead of yellow. At first, the two individuals in our breeding centre did not want to come together; the male was extremely dominant, and every time we tried to put the two together, he would chase the female, so that we had to remove her to avoid her suffering any damage. Finally, we gave it a last try: it occurred to us that if we transferred them both into the large flocking aviary of the palm cockatoos, they might possibly form a pair under the pressure of these big birds. And this is what happened – within less than a month, the pair had produced two fertile eggs, which we removed to make sure that they hatched successfully, as we did not know how reliable the pair was. Currently, the two chicks are being hand-reared at our baby station and are doing well. Shortly afterwards, the female laid another clutch, which again produced two young, but this time they are being raised satisfactorily by their parents. As there is no information in the literature about the breeding of this subspecies in captivity, we assume that these four chicks represent the first-ever captive breeding of the Morotai yellow-backed lory worldwide.

Abridged from the report for August 2002 compiled by Matthias Reinschmidt, Curator, Loro Parque

Los Angeles Zoo, California, U.S.A.

With the pronounced inward angle of its futuristic, ten-foot-tall [3 m] grid of steel rods and cables, one of the zoo's recently refurbished and redesigned exhibits looks as though its rugged terrain might contain creatures straight out of Jurassic Park. But really, it is home to something much less ominous: Tadjik markhors (Capra falconeri heptneri). These members of the goat family are critically endangered, with as few as 1,000 remaining in the wild, primarily because of uncontrolled poaching and trophy hunting. Markhors are noted for their unusual, spectacularly-spiraling horns which, on males, can corkscrew up to 60 inches [1.5 m] in length. Females also have twisting horns, though of a thinner and flattened type.

The translation of `markhor' depends on whom you ask. A Tajikistani will tell you mar means `snake' and khor means `donkey', which works out to `donkey with horns shaped like a snake'. But speakers of Farsi, while agreeing that mar means `snake', will argue that khor means `eater', behavior the completely herbivorous markhor is highly unlikely to engage in. Here at the zoo, our markhors enjoy a diet of carrots, apples, kale, and romaine, along with helpings of Sudan [sorghum} hay and acacia browse.

Living in mountainous regions of Central Asia, markhors occupy arid cliff-side habitats in sparsely wooded terrain, at altitudes ranging from 2,000 feet in winter to as much as 13,000 feet during the summer months [600–4,000 m]. Their surefootedness is one reason for the elaborate and high-tech fencing that surrounds their rocky enclosure at the zoo. They are very agile, and can easily jump eight or nine feet [2.4–2.75 m]. They are even adept tree climbers, and our acrobatic troop haven't hesitated to scale the exhibit's vertical walls – in fact, an electronic deterrence device was added shortly after the male was reportedly seen standing at the very top of the rear wall. While the two females aren't quite as ambitious, keeper Dianne Cameron says she's seen them `climb halfway up the curved rear wall and run across it like it was flat.'

Very social animals, markhors in the wild live in small herds consisting mostly of females, with males joining them during the fall mating season. Our group presently numbers only three – a three-year-old male from Buffalo Zoo, a three-year-old female from Zoo New England, and another female, six years old, from San Antonio, with a one-year-old female due to arrive on loan from Peace River Refuge in Marfa, Texas – but we are optimistic that the zoo will have a few `new kids in town' next spring.

Adapted from William Campbell in Zooscape Vol. 26, No. 5 (November 2002)

[The Central Asian belief that markhors eat snakes is curiously reminiscent of the similar stories told in Indochina about the linh duong or mountain goat (which enjoyed brief fame as the non-existent species Pseudonovibos spiralis). Oddly enough, the same behaviour was attributed to deer in mediaeval Europe. – Ed.]

Territory Wildlife Park, Northern Territory, Australia

Recently, Ruby, the raptor section's rufous owl (Ninox rufa), has been seen hanging by her wings from display perches during her presentations. At first this looked ungainly and seemed to be a problem, until it was realized that she was actually hanging from the perches on purpose. Birds of this species have an unusual `thumb-bone' near the alula area of the wing, which enables them to hang from this point effortlessly, possibly in order to use both feet freely to hold and kill such prey as fruit bats, possums and tree-rats. We have so far been unable to find any information regarding this wingbone. If anyone has any information about this unique adaptation, please contact the Territory Wildlife Park (Raptor Section), Cox Peninsula Road, Berry Springs, P.O. Box 771, Palmerston, NT 0831, Australia (Tel.: +61 8 8988 7200; Fax: +61 8 8988 7201; E-mail: ).

Lynda Veyret in Thylacinus Vol. 26, No. 3 (2002)

Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, Japan

The zoo began keeping pygmy hippos in July 1960, for the first time in Japan. Babies were born in 1962 and 1964, but another born in 1969 died immediately after birth. None were born after that, even though another male was acquired. In 1991 Shohei (a male born in November 1990 at Higashiyama Zoo) came to Ueno, and in 1993 Ebony (a female born in December 1989 at St Louis Zoo) joined him as his mate. Ebony gave birth in 1999 and 2000, but both babies died. The 2000 baby was crushed by the mother, so in 2001 a space for a baby to escape into was prepared in the birth chamber.

On the evening of 24 April 2001, Ebony lost her appetite and lay down frequently, and also threatened her keeper violently. Two hours later she gave birth to a female calf, but lay down again immediately, and the baby was unable to nurse until three and a half hours later.

The baby was separated from Ebony at the age of 194 days, and preparations were made for the next breeding. Another female calf was born on 20 June 2002. She weighed 11 kg at the age of nine days, a little more than the previous baby. This year Ebony seemed to have got used to raising babies, so the two were allowed outside a week earlier than usual, and the baby was also put on exhibit a week earlier. The term of pregnancy was 196 days in 2001 and 194 days in 2002.

English summary of article in Japanese by Takuya Fujimoto, published in Animals and Zoos Vol. 54, No. 9 (September 2002)

Walsrode Bird Park, Germany

Until now, only two trogon species have ever bred in captivity – the golden-crested quetzal (Pharomachrus auriceps) at Houston Zoo and the white-tailed trogon (Trogon viridis) at Walsrode [and now at the National Aquarium in Baltimore (see I.Z.N. 49:5, p. 309) – Ed.]. There are also rumours that the resplendent quetzal (P. mocinno) reproduced in a private facility in Central America, but this has never been confirmed. Although some of the 12 species of Asian trogons have been regularly imported in low numbers, none has bred in captivity.

In early 2002, we released a pair of Javan trogons (Apalharpactes reinwardtii) into the walk-through aviary of our old tropical house, where they soon began removing bark from a dead trunk, but without much success because the wood was so hard. We placed a nesting box filled to the top with light-coloured wood shavings nearby. The trogons accepted this box immediately and pulled out the filling until a slight depression was formed below the entrance. We found one egg on 24 February, and the birds started incubating, the male mainly during daytime, and the female at night.

A young trogon hatched on 17 March, and was perfectly reared by its parents until we had to remove it from the nest because it had an eye injury. The bird was almost ready to fledge, and we reared it without problems. The pair became interested in the nest box again on 16 April, and another egg was laid on the 29th. This time only the male attended the nest until the female laid a second egg on 1 May. Two more chicks hatched and are being hand-reared at the time of writing (July), while the pair are attending their third clutch.

Meanwhile, we filled all our other trogons' nest boxes with wood shavings. A pair of red-headed trogons (Harpactes erythrocephala) showed interest in a box in the indoor part of their enclosure on 4 April, throwing out the shavings as observed in the Javan trogons. We found an egg on 16 April, but the parents did not incubate it reliably, so we removed it for artificial incubation, and on 2 May the chick hatched. It is being hand-reared by our keepers.

On 17 April, our pair of Diard's trogon (H. diardii) started excavating their nest box, throwing out the filling. We observed the pair incubating for the first time on 5 May; on 6 July two chicks hatched and are being hand-reared. The pair re-laid and are incubating a second clutch.

The pattern of breeding in all cases was very similar. Pairs did not need much time to adapt to a new enclosure and investigate nest boxes. Apparently, deep boxes are not suitable, possibly because trogons have weak feet which may result in difficulties in climbing up and down the cavities. The birds seem to like watching their surroundings while incubating as, when given the opportunity to form the nest themselves, they did not excavate the hole very deeply.

It seems very strange that despite decades of keeping trogons in zoos and private collections, we suddenly have this boom of reproduction in our small trogon colony, with most likely three world-first breeding achievements. Perhaps the nest box design is the crucial point, while size and structure of the enclosure, as well as food, are obviously also of importance.

Dieter Rinke in EAZA News No. 39 (July–September 2002)

Wilhelma Zoo, Stuttgart, Germany

A tiny pink foot or, if you're lucky, a wrinkled little face topped with a crown of hair – that's all one is likely to see of the newest member of Wilhelma's bonobo family. The mother, Lina, holds her baby tight against her body and turns her back on anyone who tries to take a close look. We don't yet know if the baby is male or female; even the keeper the animals know well has not yet had a good view of it. The infant's father will eventually be identified by a paternity test, but there are currently two possible candidates. The wild-caught male Zorba would be genetically preferable, but female bonobos don't always take zoologists' wishes into account, so the father could equally likely be Kirembo. The baby, born on 29 October, is the 20th bonobo to be bred at Wilhelma – our 11-strong extended family is one of the most successful breeding groups in the world.

Translated by Nicholas Gould from a Wilhelma press release (13 November 2002)

Woburn Safari Park, U.K.

Eleven Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) completed six months' quarantine in September and were released into the park's Monkey Jungle to join the 17 monkeys and nine American black bears already living there. Only ten had arrived from Givskud Zoo, Denmark, and Vallèe des Singes, France, but a baby was born during the quarantine period.

In their native North Africa, Barbary macaques live in cedar forests that are often snow-covered for weeks on end, so they are more than adequately adapted to the British climate. But their forests are now being cut down, and the wild population has fallen to approximately 1,200 to 2,000 animals. They live in large mixed groups and whilst the mother does most of the parenting, the males will take an interest in young infants – the father of the baby born here often holds and cuddles the youngster.

These monkeys have joined two Barbary macaques already living in the Jungle and three other species, black-and-white colobus, patas monkey and savanna monkey. This mix of species makes the Monkey Jungle the most diverse mixed primate exhibit in Europe, and at 17 acres (6.9 ha) it is the largest primate exhibit in the U.K. We intend to introduce more monkeys into this unique exhibit as they become available from other collections around Europe.

Abridged from a Woburn Safari Park press release

* * *

Index to Contributors, International Zoo News Volume 49 (2002)

Adler, H. Jörg, Raffel, Martina, & Wirth, Roland, 2, 114–115

Agoramoorthy, Govindasamy, 5, 260–266, 306–308; see also Nair, Sajitha

Ahtola, Markku, 2, 108–109

Arai, Hiroshi, 4, 245

Asa, Cheryl, & Dempsey, Jan, 2, 115–116

Azúa, John, 6, 362

Backwell, Whendie, Foster, Heather, Young, Tim, & Parker, Steve, 2, 113–114

Baier, Jeff, see Kenny, David E.

Baker, Lisa, see Tieber, Anne

Barnaby, David, 6, 344–350

Batters, Gary, 7, 436, 442

Bemment, Neil, 3, 182–183

Bercovitch, Fred, & Rieches, Randy, 7, 440–442

Birkett, Jon, & Prosser, Sonya, 6, 370–371

Blaskiewitz, Bernhard, 1, 59; 4, 244

Blomqvist, Leif, 1, 39–40; see also Larsson, Christer

Bloxam, Quentin, 4, 237–238

Böhm, Christiane, 4, 224–225

Brack, Chris, 7, 438–439

Brackett, David, 1, 32–33

Bruins, Eugène, 8, 497

Campbell, William, 8, 500

Carney, Trena, 3, 186

Carpentier, Henri, see Rookmaaker, Kees

Challis, Mark, 2, 104–106; 4, 236

Chitty, John, 6, 369–370

Cimino, Ray, 7, 436–437; 8, 488–490

Coelho, Carlyle M., see Leite-Young, M. Teresa V.

Cousins, Don, 4, 210–218

Crockford, Nathan, 2, 106–107

Czekala, Nancy, 1, 53–54

Damen, Marc, 1, 38–39

de Ruiter, Maarten, 5, 294

Debnar, Laura, 3, 167–168

Dunce, Ilze, 6, 373–374

Edwards, Mark, 3, 185–186

Ellis, Malcolm, 4, 231

Fainstein, Mikhail, see Fainstein, Vladimir

Fainstein, Vladimir, Miljutina, Tatjana, Sajadjan, Jana, Pent, Julia, & Fainstein, Mikhail, 2, 117–118

Fennell, Leigh, 6, 371–372

Finkle, Sue, see Timmons, Maryellen

Fischer, Frank, see Tieber, Anne

Fletchall, Norah B., 2, 110–111; 3, 181–182

Foster, Heather, see Backwell, Whendie

Frank, Elizabeth, see Grittinger, Thomas

Fujimoto, Takuya, 8, 501

Fukuda, Michio, 5, 312

Furnweger, Karen, 2, 100–101, 111–112; 5, 295–296, 305–306; 6, 366–368; 8, 498–499

Furrer, Samuel, 3, 187

Gadsby, Elizabeth L., 6, 355–356

Gordon, Rhiannon, 4, 243

Gould, Nicholas, 1, 2, 27–28, 30–31; 2, 66, 94, 96; 3, 130, 165–166; 4, 228–229, 230; 5, 258–259, 287–290; 6, 322; 7, 386–388; 8, 450, 500–501

Grittinger, Thomas, & Frank, Elizabeth, 7, 404–413

Haddane, Brahim, see Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki

Haeffner, Rick, 6, 360

Hall, Heather, & Wood, Elizabeth, 4, 233

Hamlett, Lori, 5, 312

Hammer, Catrin, & Hammer, Sven, 8, 483–487

Haring, David, 4, 246

Herold, Henrik, 4, 242

Hiddinga, Bart, 4, 232

Hoedemaker, Marjo, 1, 43–44

Honda, Naoya, 6, 376

Howse, Paul, see McKeown, Stephen

Hughes, Lynn, & Woollard, Stephen P., 2, 67–72

Ibler, Benjamin, 4, 220–223; 7, 437, 439–440

Ito, Tomoki, Koyama, Yoshio, & Nippashi, Kazuaki, 6, 375–376

Jones, Marvin L., 7, 414–415

Karis, Paul, 3, 182

Kawata, Ken, 3, 142–150, 163, 180–181, 186–187; 4, 195; 8, 452–464

Keeling, Clinton, 1, 24–25; 4, 225–226

Kenny, David E., Baier, Jeff, & Knightly, Felicia, 6, 362–363

King, Cathy, 7, 429–435

Kisling, Vernon N., 4, 194–195

Kitchener, Andrew, 1, 28–30; see also Law, Graham

Knightly, Felicia, see Kenny, David E.

Kojima, Yoshinori, 1, 56–57; see also Sugita, H.

Koyama, Yoshio, see Ito, Tomoki

Kramer, Lynn W., 1, 47

Kudrin, V.S., see Meshik, V.A.

Larsson, Christer, Blomqvist, Leif, & Toreld, Marcus, 1, 40–41

Law, Graham, & Kitchener, Andrew, 1, 4–12

Leeds, Dale, 6, 360–361

Leite-Young, M. Teresa V., Coelho, Carlyle M., & Young, Robert J., 6, 323–330

Lemm, Jeff, 4, 244

Lindsay, Nick, 4, 246

McGinnity, Dale, 7, 396–403

McKeown, Stephen, & Howse, Paul, 1, 45–46

Meshik, V.A., Orbachevskaya, I.Y., & Kudrin, V.S., 2, 86–92

Miljutina, Tatjana, see Fainstein, Vladimir

Miller, Brian J., see Reading, Richard P.

Miller, R. Eric, 1, 52–53

Mitchell, Heidi, 4, 239–240

Miyamoto, N., see Sugita, H.

Moiser, Chris M., 1, 23–24

Mollinedo, Manuel A., 2, 112–113

Moore, Don, 3, 187

Morris, Anne, & Morris, Paul, 7, 437–438

Morris, Paul, see Morris, Anne

Morrison, Rob, 2, 103

Morrow, Catherine, 3, 180

Muir, Christine, see Timmons, Maryellen

Nair, Sajitha, & Agoramoorthy, Govindasamy, 1, 19–22

Ng, San San, 2, 74–81

Nippashi, Kazuaki, see Ito, Tomoki

O'Brien, Claire, 4, 239

Oliver, William, 6, 353–354

Ong, Sue-Lyn, & Ping, Gavin Lee Choon, 1, 14–18

Orbachevskaya, I.Y., see Meshik, V.A.

O'Sullivan, Charlotte, 4, 224

Parker, Steve, see Backwell, Whendie

Paulsen, Beth, 1, 50

Pent, Julia, see Fainstein, Vladimir

Ping, Gavin Lee Choon, see Ong, Sue-Lyn

Pintér, Ágnes, see Vidákovits, István

Prosser, Sonya, see Birkett, Jon

Raffel, Martina, see Adler, H. Jörg

Ratajszczak, Radoslaw, 2, 115

Reading, Richard P., & Miller, Brian J., 6, 363

Recer, Paul, 1, 35–36

Reichenbach, Herman, 2, 94–96; 3, 151–163, 178–179; 4, 196–208; 8, 494–496; see also Rookmaaker, Kees

Reinschmidt, Matthias, 5, 308–309; 6, 368; 8, 499–500

Reiter, Jan, 3, 187

Reno, Susan, 7, 440

Rieches, Randy, see Bercovitch, Fred

Rinke, Dieter, 2, 119–120; 8, 501–502

Rookmaaker, Kees, 1, 35

Rookmaaker, Kees, Carpentier, Henri, & Reichenbach, Herman, 5, 274–275

Ryder, Oliver A., 5, 292–293

Sajadjan, Jana, see Fainstein, Vladimir

Sakashita, R., see Sugita, H.

Sánchez, Iñigo, 2, 109–110

Schilfarth, Jürgen, 1, 34

Schlein, Pete, see Timmons, Maryellen

Schmidt, Deb, 4, 243–244

Schmidt, Harald, see van Herk, Robert

Schoo, Wineke, 1, 44–45

Shoemaker, Alan H., 1, 52; 4, 242–243

Strehlow, Harro, 2, 82–85; 5, 268–273

Sugita, H., Kojima, Y., Sakashita, R., Miyamoto, N., & Takahashi, Y., 2, 118–119

Swaisgood, Ronald R., 6, 352–353

Sweeney, Roger G., 5, 276–278

Takahashi, Y., see Sugita, H.

Thornton, S.M., 4, 227–228

Thurston, Jenny, & Warburton, Tony, 7, 442–443

Tieber, Anne, Fischer, Frank, & Baker, Lisa, 6, 374–375

Timmons, Maryellen, Muir, Christine, Schlein, Pete, & Finkle, Sue, 1, 57–58

Tofts, Russell, 4, 225

Toreld, Marcus, see Larsson, Christer

Trautwein, Sandy, 2, 103–104

Tunnicliffe, Sue Dale, 5, 280–286

Tuson, John, 3, 132–140, 169; 8, 496

Urioste, Jaime A. de, 8, 497–498

van Bruggen, A.C., 4, 229–230, 233; 6, 336–343

van Elk, Niels, 1, 59

van Herk, Robert, Veltman, Ko, & Schmidt, Harald, 1, 35

van Lierop, Mathew, 6, 366

van Weerd, Hans, 4, 233–234

Veenhuizen, Rolf, 7, 422–423

Veltman, Ko, 3, 170; see also van Herk, Robert

Vermeer, Jan, 7, 390–395

Veyret, Lynda, 8, 501

Vidákovits, István, & Pintér, Ágnes, 6, 332–334

Warburton, Tony, see Thurston, Jenny

Wassenberg, Rich, 6, 374

Wentzel, Isabel, 5, 302–303

Whitbread, Sam, & Vaughan, Rob, 8, 491–493

Wirth, Roland, see Adler, H. Jörg

Wisniewski, Patrick J., 6, 366, 377

Wood, Elizabeth, see Hall, Heather

Woollard, Stephen P., 7, 416–420; see also Hughes, Lynn

Wortman, John, 6, 361–362

Yamaguchi, Nobuyuki, & Haddane, Brahim, 8, 466–482

Young, Robert J., see Leite-Young, M. Teresa V.

Young, Tim, see Backwell, Whendie

* * *

Index to Books Reviewed, International Zoo News Volume 49 (2002)

Ash, Mitchell G., & Dittrich, Lothar (eds.): Menagerie des Kaisers, Zoo der Wiener – 250 Jahre Tiergarten Schönbrunn. 8, 494–496.

Beck, Benjamin B., Stoinski, Tara S., Hutchins, Michael, Maple, Terry L., Norton, Bryan, Rowan, Andrew, Stevens, Elizabeth F., & Arluke, Arnold: Great Apes and Humans: the Ethics of Coexistence. 5, 288–290.

Cowlishaw, Guy, & Dunbar, Robin: Primate Conservation Biology. 1, 30–31.

del Hoyo, Josep, Elliott, Andrew, & Sargatal, Jordi (eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World: Volume 7 – Jacamars to Woodpeckers. 5, 287–288.

Dittrich, Lothar, von Engelhardt, Dietrich, & Rieke-Müller, Annelore: Die Kulturgeschichte des Zoos. 2, 94–96.

Griffin, Donald R.: Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. 1, 27–28.

Groves, Colin: Primate Taxonomy. 1, 28–30.

Hemdal, Jay: Aquarium Careers. 2, 96.

Johnsgard, Paul A.: Trogons and Quetzals of the World. 2, 94.

Macdonald, David: The New Encyclopedia of Mammals. 3, 165–166.

Robbins, Louise E.: Elephant Slaves and Pampered Parrots: Exotic Animals in Eighteenth-century Paris. 8, 494–495.

Tritsch, Mark F.: Collins Traveller's Guide: Wildlife of India. 4, 230.

Van den Berg, P., Van den Berg, I., & Hopkins, P.: The First Hundred Years. National Zoological Gardens of South Africa. 4, 229–230.

Weatherhaed, John: Elephants I'll Never Forget: A Keeper's Life at Whipsnade and London Zoo. 8, 496.

Wickens, S.M. (ed.): Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: a Chronicle of Seventy-five Years of UFAW. 4, 228–229.

Wright, Kevin M., & Whitaker, Brent R.: Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. 4, 227–228.

* * *

Subject Index, International Zoo News Volume 49 (2002)

[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.]

Acinonyx jubatus,

Asiatic, status survey, Iran, 1, 32

deaths by poisoning, Cango Wildlife Ranch, 1, 45

semen production data, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 1, 61

Adelaide Zoo, South Australia,

annual report 2000/2001, 1, 41–42

Aruba Island rattlesnake, 1, 59

scoliosis, koala, 2, 103

Ailuropoda melanoleuca,

genetic diversity, 5, 291

hormonal and behavioural study, San Diego Zoo, 3, 191

reproductive research, Wolong Nature Reserve, China, 6, 352–353

Ailurus fulgens, enclosure, Görlitz Zoo, 1, 48–50

Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation, Qatar, 8, 483–487

Albuquerque Biological Park, New Mexico, U.S.A., breeding, Rio Grande silvery minnow, 5, 304

Alligator, Chinese, see Alligator sinensis

Alligator sinensis, breeding, Sapporo Maruyama Zoo, 6, 376

Alouatta seniculus, Cologne Zoo, 7, 447

Amazon, St Vincent, see Amazona guildingii; scaly-naped, see A. mercenaria

Amazona guildingii, Calvin Nicholls Wildlife Complex, 5, 276–278

Amazona mercenaria, first captive breeding, Loro Parque, 3, 177–178

Amblonyx cinereus, mating and birth behaviour, Singapore Zoo, 1, 19–22

Amersfoort Zoo, the Netherlands,

bachelor group, giraffe, 1, 63–64

Indian rhino, 1, 43–44

Ammotragus lervia, Giza Zoo, 6, 383

Amphibians, medicine and husbandry (book review), 4, 227–228

Amsterdam Zoo, the Netherlands,

buildings and history, 6, 336–343

invertebrates displayed via video camera, 8, 497

Andrias davidianus, conservation, China, 2, 121

Animals, cultural significance, 8, 450

Anorrhinus galeritus, in situ conservation, 4, 231

Anteater, giant, see Myrmecophaga tridactyla

Anthracoceros a. albirostris, breeding, Nanning Zoo, China, 6, 371

Aoudad, see Ammotragus lervia

Apalharpactes reinwardtii, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 8, 501–502

Aptenodytes patagonicus,

breeding, Moody Gardens, 5, 309

death at 40+, Nagasaki Penguin Aquarium, 2, 121

time-budget study, Rotterdam Zoo, 7, 431

Apteryx australis mantelli,

new house, Orana Wildlife Park, 6, 371

release, New Zealand, 2, 120

Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, California, U.S.A. breeding, weedy sea dragon, 2, 103–104

Aquariums, careers (book review), 2, 96

Aquazoo, Düsseldorf, Germany, behaviour, gundi, 3, 190–191

Aquila chrysaetos japonica, breeding, Tama Zoo, 1, 56–57

Arapaima, see Arapaima gigas

Arapaima gigas, husbandry, Faunia, 6, 379

Armadillo, three-banded, see Tolypeutes matacus; hairy, see Chaetophractus villosus

Ass, Somali wild, see Equus africanus somalicus

Atelerix albiventris, breeding, Saitama Children's Zoo, 6, 376

Ateles geoffroyi, fear of pomegranates, St Louis Zoo, 3, 187

Atelopus zeteki, breeding, Detroit Zoo, 2, 107–108

Auckland Zoo, New Zealand, `Native Fauna Encounters', 5, 304–305

Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., artificial insemination research, clouded leopard, 5, 312

Aurelia aurita, John Ball Zoo, 3, 181–182

Aye-aye, see Daubentonia madagascariensis

Baboon, hamadryas, see Papio hamadryas

Banham Zoo, U.K., 3, 132–140; 7, 436

Bat, Rodrigues fruit, see Pteropus rodricensis; Seba's short-tailed, see Carollia perspicillata

Bats, environmental enrichment, 1, 7–10

Bear, American black, see Ursus americanus; brown, see U. arctos; polar, see U. maritimus; sloth, see Melursus ursinus

Bears, environmental enrichment, 1, 4–6

Bee-eaters, see Merops spp.

Belfast Zoo, Northern Ireland, U.K., 2, 104–106

breeding, Malayan tapir, 4, 236

breeding, purple-faced langur, 2, 106

visitor's report, 7, 436–437

Belle Vue Zoo, Manchester, U.K., 3, 156–161

Belo Horizonte Zoo, Brazil, multi-disciplinary conservation project, maned wolf, 6, 323–330

Bird of paradise, great, see Paradisaea apoda; red, see P. rubra

Bittern, see Botaurus stellaris

Blackpool Zoo, U.K., gorilla exhibit, 4, 236

Blue Planet Aquarium, Ellesmere Port, U.K., response to new environment, coral reef fishes, 1, 61–62

Bongo, see Tragelaphus eurycerus

Bonobo, see Pan paniscus

Botaurus stellaris, Wetland Centre, London, 2, 121

Bothriechis rowleyi, breeding, San Antonio Zoo, 2, 120–121

Brachylagus idahoensis, Oregon Zoo, 1, 51–52

Bradford, U.K., `lost' zoo, 4, 225–226

Bratislava Zoo, Slovakia, visitor's report, 7, 437

Brevard Zoo, Melbourne, Florida, U.S.A., breeding, Baird's tapir, 4, 236–237

Bristol Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, dwarf crocodile, 2, 106

conservation awards, 7, 416–420

conservation education, 2, 67–72

Bronx Zoo (Wildlife Conservation Park), New York, U.S.A., given two islands in Falklands, 6, 364

Brotogeris chrysopterus tuipara, first captive breeding, Loro Parque, 6, 368

Brussels, Belgium, `lost' zoo, 4, 196–198

Buceros bicornis,

captive management, Europe, 1, 35

`dating centre', Burgers' Zoo, 1, 44–45

Bucorvus abyssinicus, breeding, Dallas Zoo, 2, 107

Budapest Zoo, Hungary, breeding, greater flamingo, 6, 332–334

Burgers' Zoo, Arnhem, the Netherlands,

annual report 2001, 1, 38–39

`dating centre', great hornbill, 1, 44–45

Sri Lankan leopard, 1, 38

Bustard, houbara, see Chlamydotis [undulata] macqueenii

Cacajao calvus rubicundus, Los Angeles Zoo, 6, 369

Calgary Zoo, Canada, breeding, pygmy slow loris, 4, 237

Calvin Nicholls Wildlife Complex, Kingstown, St Vincent, St Vincent amazon parrot, 5, 276–278

Cango Wildlife Ranch, Oudtshoorn, South Africa, cheetahs poisoned, 1, 45

Canis lupus baileyi, inbreeding and body size, 4, 251

Capra falconeri heptneri, new exhibit, Los Angeles Zoo, 8, 500

Carollia perspicillata, Chester Zoo, 1, 45–46

Cat, European wild, see Felis s. silvestris

Cebus apella xanthosternos, social study, Zürich Zoo, 2, 126–127

Celestus spp., conservation project, Nashville Zoo, 7, 396–403

Central Park Zoo, New York, U.S.A., nutrition, two-toed sloth, 3, 187

Cephalophus spp.,

dietary research, 4, 250, 253–255

husbandry, Los Angeles Zoo, 4, 248

management, Duiker and Mini-Antelope Breeding and Research Institute, 4, 249–250

Ceratotherium simum,

breeding, Hamilton Zoo, 3, 180

breeding, Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, 4, 246

endocrine monitoring, 3, 189–190

prolific females, 2, 120; 4, 224; 7, 414–415

reproductive research, CRES, San Diego, 01, 53–54

Chaetophractus villosus, breeding, Poznan Zoo, 2, 115

Chameleon, panther, see Furcifer pardalis

Cheetah, see Acinonyx jubatus

Chester Zoo, U.K.,

annual report 2001, 6, 357–359

behaviour, orang-utan, 4, 248–249

kea, environmental enrichment, 7, 437–438

new bat exhibit, 1, 45–46

Chimpanzee, see Pan troglodytes

Chlamydotis [undulata] macqueenii,

egg study, National Avian Research Center, Abu Dhabi, 6, 378

factors affecting growth, National Wildlife Research Center, Saudi Arabia, 1, 64

Choloepus didactylus,

milk constituents, Hannover Zoo, 5, 316–317

nutrition, Central Park Zoo, 3, 187

Chrysocyon brachyurus, multi-disciplinary conservation project, Belo Horizonte Zoo, 6, 323–330

Ciconia boyciana, hand-rearing and return to foster parents, Tama Zoo, 2, 118–119

Ciconia ciconia, conservation and release, Jerez Zoo, 2, 109–110

Ciconia nigra, hand-rearing and return to foster parents, Tama Zoo, 2, 119

Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A., management and research, Sumatran rhino mother and calf, 6, 363–365

Colobus, Miss Waldron's red, see Procolobus badius waldroni

Cologne (Köln) Zoo, Germany, 5, 305

behaviour, orang-utan, 7, 445

red howler monkey, 7, 447

social study, bonobo, 7, 445

Condor, Andean, see Vultur gryphus; California, see Gymnogyps californianus

Consciousness, animal (book review), 1, 27–28

Copenhagen Zoo, Denmark, annual report 2001, 5, 298–302

Corvus hawaiiensis, behaviour and reproduction, 4, 251–252

Cotswold Wildlife Park, Burford, U.K., breeding and nutrition, western grey plantain-eater, 2, 106–107

Crane, Siberian, see Grus leucogeranus

Crinifer piscator, breeding and nutrition, Cotswold Wildlife Park, 2, 106–107

Crocodile, dwarf, see Osteolaemus tetraspis

Crotalus durissimus unicolor, Adelaide Zoo, 1, 59

Crow, Hawaiian, see Corvus hawaiiensis

Cryptozoology, 1, 23–24

Ctenodactylus gundi, behaviour, Aquazoo, Düsseldorf, 3, 190–191

Cyanopsitta spixii, conservation, 7, 423–424

Cyclura nubila, kidnapping dominant males, 3, 168

Cyclura nubila lewisi, conservation, 7, 424

Cyclura pinguis, breeding, San Diego Zoo, 1, 54; 4, 244

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

breeding, Abyssinian ground hornbill, 2, 107

breeding, banded pit viper, 1, 46–47

Daubentonia madagascariensis,

breeding, Duke University Primate Center, 4, 246

Ueno Zoo, 3, 186

Deep Sea World, North Queensferry, Scotland, U.K., school outreach programme, 4, 237

Deer, Père David's, see Elaphurus davidianus

Dendrocopos leucotos, Nordic Ark, 1, 40–41

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

annual report 2001, 6, 360–363

breeding, polar bear, 6, 361

breeding, red river hog, 1, 47

death under anaesthesia, orang-utan, 6, 362–363

Detroit Zoo, Michigan, U.S.A.,

breeding, Panamanian golden frog, 2, 107–108

new polar bear exhibit, 1, 47–48

Dicerorhinus sumatrensis,

Madras Zoo (1899–), 5, 274–275

management and research, mother and calf, Cincinnati Zoo, 6, 363–365

Diceros bicornis,

endocrine monitoring, 3, 189–190

iron overload, Los Angeles Zoo, 4, 239

longevity, 1, 34–35

prolific females, 7, 414–415

Dog, African wild, see Lycaon pictus

Dolphin, Amazon river, see Inia geoffrensis; bottle-nosed, see Tursiops truncatus

Drill, see Mandrillus leucophaeus

Duiker and Mini-Antelope Breeding and Research Institute, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe,

dietary research, duikers, 4, 253–254

management, duikers, 4, 249–250

Duiker, common, see Sylvicapra grimmia; forest, see Cephalophus spp.

Duke University Primate Center, North Carolina, U.S.A.,

breeding, aye-aye, 4, 246

browse in diet, sifaka, 3, 190

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (Jersey Zoo), Channel Islands,

breeding, Madagascar flat-tailed tortoise, 4, 238

breeding, giant jumping rat, 4, 237–238

management, black lion tamarin, 4, 256

metabolic bone disease, pied tamarin, 4, 252

water-cleansing reed bed, 1, 48

Düsseldorf, Germany, `lost' zoo, 4, 201–202

Eagle, harpy, see Harpia harpyja; Japanese golden, see Aquila chrysaetos japonica; Steller's sea, see Haliaeetus pelagicus

Echinops telfairi, breeding, Saitama Children's Zoo, 6, 376

Edinburgh Zoo, Scotland, U.K., prolific female white rhino, 4, 224

Education in zoos,

conservation, Bristol Zoo, 2, 67–72

history, 1, 24–25

`young zoologists' kit', 5, 280–286

Eggs, digital monitoring system, 3, 169–170

Eindhoven Animal Park, the Netherlands, European flora and fauna exhibit, 5, 319

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


captive reproduction, 1, 34

environmental enrichment, 1, 5–7

research projects, International Elephant Foundation, 2, 97–98

Elephas maximus,

breeding, Tierpark Berlin, 1, 59

ivory trade investigated, 4, 234

manure sold with banana seeds, Woburn Safari Park, 6, 377

Elaphurus davidianus, release, China, 5, 317

Emmen Zoo, The Netherlands, introduction to existing group, hamadryas baboon, 1, 62–63

Endangered Primate Rescue Center, Cuc Phuong, Vietnam, 5, 319

Endangered Species Breeding Unit, Martin Mere, U.K., 6, 366

Enhydra lutris,

contraception, Oregon Zoo, 4, 241

stillbirth, Seattle Aquarium, 5, 311

Enteroctopus dofleini,

environmental enrichment, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, 5, 295

environmental enrichment, John G. Shedd Aquarium, 2, 111–112

Environmental enrichment, 6, 366

giraffe, Rolling Hills Refuge, 6, 374

jaguar, Marwell Zoo, 4, 239–240

kea, Chester Zoo, 7, 437–438

octopuses, 2, 111–112; 5, 295–296

parrots, Jurong Bird Park, 2, 74–81

seals, National Aquarium in Baltimore, 6, 380

simple techniques for bears, bats and elephants, 1, 4–12

South American tapir, Twycross Zoo, 2, 121

Equus africanus somalicus, behaviour, Wilhelma Zoo and Tierpark Berlin, 2, 127

Equus hemionus kulan, captive population, Ukraine, 6, 384

Equus kiang holdereri, Riga Zoo, 7, 428–429

Equus przewalskii, bachelor groups, 2, 124

Erinaceus amurensis, breeding, Saitama Children's Zoo, 6, 375

Eudyptes chrysocome, husbandry problems, Tokyo Sea Life Park, 5, 312

`Extinct' animals, rediscovery, 1, 32–33; 6, 322

Faunia, Madrid, Spain, husbandry, arapaima, 6, 379

Felis s. silvestris, reintroduction, Germany, 3, 191

Fishes, coral reef, response to new environment, Blue Planet Aquarium, 1, 61–62

Flamingo, greater, see Phoenicopterus ruber; lesser, see Phoeniconaias minor

Foot-and-mouth disease, effect on Dutch zoos, 4, 233

Fota Wildlife Park, Ireland, 8, 488–490

Franklin Park Zoo, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., breeding, potto, 1, 48

Fratercula corniculata, St Louis Zoo, 6, 374–375

Frog, southern corroboree, see Pseudophryne corroboree; Panamanian golden, see Atelopus zeteki; Tonkin bug-eyed, see Theloderma corticale

Frogs, new exhibit, Moody Gardens, 4, 240

Fundación Neotrópico, Canary Islands, Spain, breeding, Canarian spotted lizard, 8, 497–498

Furcifer pardalis, diet and reproduction, 5, 315–316

Galliwasps, giant, see Celestus spp.

Gallotia intermedia, breeding, Fundación Neotrópico, 8, 497–498

Geochelone elegans, confiscated in Singapore and returned to India, 6, 354–355

Geochelone nigra, dietary study, Rotterdam and Zürich Zoos, 1, 62

Geochelone yniphora, reproductive research, 4, 249

Geronticus eremita,

genetic difference between Moroccan and Turkish populations, 3, 187

wild colony found in Syria, 7, 422

Gibbon, Javan grey, see Hylobates moloch

Giraffa camelopardalis,

artificial leg, Omoriyama Zoo, 5, 312–313

bachelor group, Amersfoort Zoo, 1, 63–64

behavioural study, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 7, 440–442

environmental enrichment, Rolling Hills Refuge, 6, 374

ninth calf born to female, Taiyuan Zoo, 4, 246

training, Melbourne Zoo, 3, 182

Giraffe, see Giraffa camelopardalis

Giza Zoo, Egypt, Barbary sheep, 6, 383

Gladys Porter Zoo, Brownsville, Texas, U.S.A., fire in gorilla exhibit, 1, 48

Gorilla, western lowland, see Gorilla g. gorilla

Gorilla g. gorilla,

exhibit, Blackpool Zoo, 4, 236

fire in exhibit, Gladys Porter Zoo, 1, 48

hand-rearing and reproductive success, 6, 381–382

plant foods utilized in wild, 4, 210–218

release, Congo and Gabon, 3, 175

socialization study, Zoo Atlanta, 1, 61

Görlitz Zoo, Germany, red panda enclosure, 1, 48–50

Grus leucogeranus, hand-rearing and return to foster parents, Tama Zoo, 2, 119

Guan, white-winged, see Penelope albipennis

Gundi, see Ctenodactylus gundi

Gymnogyps californianus, breeding in wild, 4, 231

Gypaetus barbatus, cannibalism in chicks, 1, 36–37; 4, 224–225

Hagenbeck Animal Park (Tierpark Hagenbeck), Hamburg, Germany, annual report 2001, 3, 178–179

Hague, The, the Netherlands, `lost' zoo, 4, 198–201

Haliaeetus pelagicus, breeding, Tallinn Zoo, 2, 117–118

Halichoerus grypus, environmental enrichment, National Aquarium in Baltimore, 6, 380

Hamburg, Germany, `lost' zoo, 4, 203–206

Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand, breeding, white rhino, 3, 180

Hannover Zoo, Germany, milk constituents, two-toed sloth, 5, 316–317

Harpactes diardii, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 8, 501–502

Harpactes erythrocephala, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 8, 501–502

Harpia harpyja, breeding, Nuremberg Zoo, 7, 438–440

Hedgehog, Brandt's, see Paraechinus hypomelas; four-toed, see Atelerix albiventris; long-eared desert, see Hemiechinus auritus; Manchurian, see Erinaceus amurensis

Helsinki Zoo, Finland,

annual report 2000, 1, 39–40

environmentally-friendly policy, shop and kiosks, 2, 108–109

Hemiechinus auritus, breeding, Saitama Children's Zoo, 6, 375

Hexaprotodon liberiensis,

breeding, Ueno Zoo, 8, 501

confiscated from private owner, California, 4, 246

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

Hippopotamus amphibius,

interaction with Californian sea lion, Longleat Safari Park, 7, 443

tusk maintenance, San Antonio Zoo, 4, 243

Hog, red river, see Potamochoerus porcus

Honolulu Zoo, Hawaii, U.S.A., visitor's report, 3, 180–181

Hornbill, Abyssinian ground, see Bucorvus abyssinicus; bushy-crested, see Anorrhinus galeritus; great, see Buceros bicornis; oriental pied, see Anthracoceros a. albirostris


conservation, the Philippines, 6, 353–354

European breeding results, 2001, 5, 268–273

zoo feathers assist conservation, 5, 292

Horse, Przewalski's, see Equus przewalskii

Howletts Wild Animal Park, U.K., annual report 2000–2001, 3, 171–175

Hybognathus amarus, breeding, Albuquerque Biological Park, 5, 304

Hylobates moloch, breeding, International Center for Gibbon Studies, 5, 305

Hypogeomys antimena, breeding, Jersey Zoo, 4, 237–238

Ibis, bald (waldrapp), see Geronticus eremita; crested, see Nipponia nippon; Madagascar crested, see Lophotibis cristata

Iguana, Anegada, see Cyclura pinguis; Cayman Island blue, see C. nubila lewisi; Cuban, see C. nubila

Inia geoffrensis, death, Pittsburgh Zoo, 4, 241–242

International Center for Gibbon Studies, Santa Clarita, California, U.S.A., breeding, Javan grey gibbon, 5, 305

International Zoo News, editorial policy, 1, 2

Jaguar, see Panthera onca

Jelly, moon, see Aurelia aurita

Jerez Zoo, Spain, conservation and release, white stork, 2, 109–110

Johannesburg Zoo, South Africa, autumn leaves as environmental enrichment, 6, 366

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

moon jelly exhibit, 3, 181–182

vitamin D3 research, reptiles, 2, 110–111

John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.,

breeding, star ray, 5, 305–306

environmental enrichment, giant Pacific octopus, 2, 111–112

training, sharks, 8, 498–499

veterinary department, 6, 366–368

Jurong Bird Park, Singapore,

environmental enrichment, parrots, 2, 74–81

greater and lesser flamingos, 5, 306–308

new South American aviary, 1, 14–18

Kabul Zoo, Afghanistan, fund-raising for, 1, 58

Kagu, see Rhynochetos jubatus

Kakapo, see Strigops habroptilus

Kansas City Zoo, Missouri, U.S.A., reproductive research, African elephant, 1, 50

Keepers, private, 1, 36

Kiang, eastern, see Equus kiang holdereri

Kite, red, see Milvus milvus

Kiwi, North Island brown, see Apteryx australis mantelli

Knoxville Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A., breeding, Madagascar flat-tailed tortoise, 8, 499

Koala, see Phascolarctos cinereus

Komodo dragon, see Varanus komodoensis

Komori, Atsushi `Pen' (1928–2002), obituary, 4, 195

Kulan, see Equus hemionus kulan

Kyiv (Kiev) Zoo, Ukraine, commercial sponsorship, 4, 238

Lammergeier, see Gypaetus barbatus

Landau Zoo, Germany, behavioural research, Humboldt's penguin, 6, 382

Langur, François's, see Trachypithecus francoisi; purple-faced, see Trachypithecus vetulus monticola

Lemur, ring-tailed, see Lemur catta

Lemur catta, social behaviour and stress, Moscow Zoo, 2, 86–92

Leontopithecus chrysopygus, management, Jersey Zoo, 4, 256

Leontopithecus rosalia, free-range, Paignton Zoo, 3, 182–183

Leopard, see Panthera pardus; clouded, see Neofelis nebulosa; Persian, see P. p. saxicolor; Sri Lankan, see P. p. kotiya

Lion, see Panthera leo; Barbary (Atlas), see P. l. leo

Liverpool, U.K., `lost' zoo, 3, 153–155

Lizard, blotched blue-tongued, see Tiliqua nigrolutea; Canarian spotted, see Gallotia intermedia; Lilford's wall, see Podarcis lilfordi

London Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, giant anteater, 2, 121

`Web of Life' biodiversity exhibit, 1, 51


black rhinoceros (48 or 49), 1, 34–35

king penguin (40+), 2, 121

male koala (19), 2,121

Longleat Safari Park, interaction between Californian sea lion and common hippo, 7, 443

Lophotibis cristata, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 2, 119–120

Loris, pygmy (lesser) slow, see Nycticebus pygmaeus

Lorius garrulus morotaianus, breeding, Loro Parque, 8, 499–500

Loro Parque, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, 5, 308–309, 6, 368

annual report 2001, 3, 175–178

breeding, Morotai yellow-backed lory, 8, 499–500

first captive breeding, scaly-naped amazon, 3, 177–178

first captive breeding, Tuipara parakeet, 6, 368

Lory, Morotai yellow-backed, see Lorius garrulus morotaianus

Los Angeles Zoo, California, U.S.A.,

breeding, mountain tapir, 2, 112–113

husbandry, forest duikers, 4, 248

iron overload, black rhino, 4, 239

new exhibit, Tadjik markhor, 8, 500

red uakari monkey, 6, 369

Loxodonta africana,

reproductive research, Kansas City Zoo, 1, 50

suggested division into two species, 1, 35–36

Luidia clathrata, research into stress of handling, University of Georgia Aquarium, 1, 57–58

Lycaon pictus, European zoos, 7, 422–423

Lynx, Iberian, see L. pardinus

Lynx pardinus, conservation, Spain, 5, 231

Macaca nigra, fingerprint study, Marwell Zoo, 2, 113–114

Macaca sylvanus, mixed exhibit with American black bear and other monkey species, Woburn Safari Park, 8, 503

Macaque, Barbary, see Macaca sylvanus; Sulawesi crested, see M. nigra

Macaw, Spix's, see Cyanopsitta spixii

Mallinson, Jeremy J.C., receives Zoological Society of San Diego gold medal, 4, 246

Mallorca, animal collections, 2, 82–85

Mammals, captive, proposed British census, 8, 491–493

Manchester, U.K., `lost' zoos, 3, 155–161

Mandrillus leucophaeus, in situ conservation, Drill Rehabilitation and Breeding Center, Nigeria, 6, 355–356

Markhor, Tadjik, see Capra falconeri heptneri

Marwell Zoo, U.K.,

amputation of toe, ostrich, 6, 369–370

environmental enrichment, jaguar, 4, 239–240

fingerprint study, Sulawesi crested macaque, 2, 113–114

Melbourne Zoo, Victoria, Australia,

reptiles and amphibians, 6, 370–371

southern corroboree frog, 6, 370

training, giraffe, 3, 182

Melursus ursinus, European zoos, 4, 233–234

Memphis Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A., prolific female white rhino, 2, 120

Merops spp., nutrition, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 48:5, 345–346

Milvus milvus, World Owl Trust, 7, 442–443

Milwaukee County Zoo, Wisconsin, U.S.A., polar bear, history, 7, 404–413

Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, Minnesota, U.S.A., Komodo dragon swallows stuffed toy, 4, 240

Minnow, Rio Grande silvery, see Hybognathus amarus

Mirounga angustirostris, blind, Oregon Zoo, 7, 443

Monarto Zoo, South Australia, annual report 2000/2001, 1, 41–42

Monkey, black-handed spider, see Ateles geoffroyi; buffy-headed capuchin, see Cebus apella xanthosternos; red howler, see Alouatta seniculus; red uakari, see Cacajao calvus rubicundus; squirrel, see Saimiri spp.

Moody Gardens, Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.,

breeding, king penguin, 5, 309

new frog and toad exhibit, 4, 240

Moscow Zoo, Russia, social behaviour and stress, ring-tailed lemur, 2, 86–92

Münster Zoo, Germany, turtle conservation project, 2, 114–115

Museums, zoo, proposed, 4, 194–195

Mussels, freshwater, conservation, North America, 2, 100–101

Myrmecophaga tridactyla, breeding, London Zoo, 2, 121

Nagasaki Penguin Aquarium, Japan, death at 40+, king penguin, 2, 121

Nanning Zoo, China, breeding, oriental pied hornbill, 6, 371

Nashville Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A., conservation project, giant galliwasps, 7, 396–403

National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.,

breeding, white-tailed trogon, 5, 309

environmental enrichment, common and grey seals, 6, 380

National Avian Research Center, Abu Dhabi, egg study, houbara bustard, 6, 378

National Marine Aquarium, Plymouth, Devon, U.K., one of world's largest windows installed, 4, 240–241

National Wildlife Research Center, Taif, Saudi Arabia, factors affecting growth, houbara bustard, 1, 64

National Zoo, Pretoria, South Africa, history (book review), 4, 229–230

Neofelis nebulosa,

adrenal study, 4, 255–256

artificial insemination research, Audubon Zoo, 5, 312

Nestor notabilis, environmental enrichment, Chester Zoo, 7, 437–438

Ninox rufa, hanging by wings, Territory Wildlife Park, 8, 501

Nipponia nippon, Ueno Zoo, 4, 245–246

Nordic Ark, Hunnebostrand, Sweden, annual report 2000, 1, 40–41

white-backed woodpecker, 1, 40–41

Nuremberg (Nürnberg) Zoo, Germany,

breeding, harpy eagle, 7, 438–440

new aquatic mammal and penguin exhibit, 4, 220–223

Nutrition, 2, 66

bee-eaters, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 48:5, 345–346

orang-utan, St Louis Zoo, 4, 243–244

touracos, Cotswold Wildlife Park, 2, 106–107

two-toed sloth, Central Park Zoo, 3, 187

Nycticebus pygmaeus, breeding, Calgary Zoo, 4, 237

Octopus, common, see Octopus vulgaris; giant Pacific, see Enteroctopus dofleini

Octopus vulgaris, environmental enrichment, 5, 295–296

Ognorhynchus icterotis,

captive records, 5, 294

conservation, 2, 99–100

Okapi, see Okapia johnstoni

Okapia johnstoni, Japan, 3, 163

Omoriyama Zoo, Akita, Japan, artificial leg, giraffe, 5, 312–313

Orana Wildlife Park, Christchurch, New Zealand, new kiwi house, 6, 371

Orang-utan, see Pongo pygmaeus

Orang-utan Island, Bukit Merah, Perak, Malaysia, free-range orang-utan, 5, 260–266

Oregon Coast Aquarium, Newport, Oregon, U.S.A., Caspian tern, 1, 51

Oregon Zoo, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.,

blind elephant seal, 7, 443

contraception, sea otter, 4, 241

pygmy rabbit, 1, 51–52

Oropendola, crested, see Psarocolius decumanus

Orsa Grönklitt Bear Park, Sweden, live internet pictures of breeding den, brown bear, 2, 115

Oryx, fringe-eared, see Oryx gazella callotis

Oryx gazella callotis, aggression control in bachelor herd, San Diego Wild Animal Park, 1, 63

Osteolaemus tetraspis, breeding, Bristol Zoo, 2, 106

Ostrich, see Struthio camelus

Otter, oriental small-clawed, see Amblonyx cinereus; sea, see Enhydra lutris

Owl, rufous, see Ninox rufa

Paignton Zoo (Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust), U.K., free-range golden lion tamarin, 3, 182–183

Pan paniscus,

breeding, Wilhelma Zoo, 8, 502

social study, Cologne Zoo, 7, 445

Pan troglodytes, forming new group, Yerkes Primate Research Center, 3, 192

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

Panthera leo, 5, 258–259

new exhibit, Schwerin Zoo, 5, 309–311

Panthera l. leo, 5, 259; 8, 466–482

Panthera onca, environmental enrichment, Marwell Zoo, 4, 239–240

Panthera pardus, subspecies re-evaluation, 5, 294–295

Panthera pardus kotiya, Burghers' Zoo, 1, 38

Panthera pardus saxicolor, breeding, Santago Rare Leopard Project, 6, 377

Panthera tigris altaica, enclosure, Schwerin Zoo, 1, 54–55

Papio hamadryas, introduction to existing group, Emmen Zoo, 1, 62–63

Paradisaea apoda, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 2, 119–120

Paradisaea rubra, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 2, 119–120

Paraechinus hypomelas, breeding, Saitama Children's Zoo, 6, 376

Parakeet, Tuipara, see Brotogeris chrysopterus tuipara

Parrot, kea, see Nestor notabilis; yellow-eared, see Ognorhynchus icterotis

Parrots, environmental enrichment, Jurong Bird Park, 2, 74–81

Pearcedale Conservation Park, Victoria, Australia, visitor's report, 6, 371–372

Penelope albipennis, reintroduction, Peru, 1, 33

Penguin, Humboldt's, see Spheniscus humboldti; king, see Aptenodytes patagonicus; rockhopper, see Eudyptes chrysocome

Perodicticus potto, breeding, Franklin Park Zoo, 1, 48

Phascolarctos cinereus,

male dies at 19, San Francisco Zoo, 2,121

reproductive research, San Diego Zoo, 2, 116–117

scoliosis, 2, 103

Phoca vitulina, environmental enrichment, National Aquarium in Baltimore, 6, 380

Phoeniconaias minor, Jurong Bird Park, 5, 306–308

Phoenicopterus ruber roseus,

breeding, Budapest Zoo, 6, 332–334

Jurong Bird Park, 5, 306–308

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, breeding, Aquarium of the Pacific, 2, 103–104

Pittsburgh Zoo, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., death of Amazon dolphin, 4, 241–242

Plantain-eater, western grey, see Crinifer piscator

Platalea minor, hand-rearing and return to parents, Tama Zoo, 2, 119

Podarcis lilfordi, food location by smell, 1, 37

Pongo pygmaeus,

behaviour, Chester Zoo, 4, 248–249

behaviour, Cologne Zoo, 7, 445

death under anaesthesia, Denver Zoo, 6, 362–363

free-range, Orang-utan Island, Bukit Merah, 5, 260–266

nutrition, St Louis Zoo, 4, 243–244

rescue and release, Borneo, 3, 167–168

Pony, Polish Konik, conservation grazing project, Suffolk, U.K., 6, 344–350

Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, U.K., annual report 2000–2001, 3, 171–175

Potamochoerus porcus, breeding, Denver Zoo, 1, 47

Potamotrygon sp., breeding, John G. Shedd Aquarium, 5, 305–306

Potto, see Perodicticus potto

Poznan Zoo, Poland, breeding, hairy and three-banded armadillos, 2, 115

Prague Zoo, Czech Republic, flood disaster, 6, 372–373


conservation biology (book review), 1, 30–31

taxonomy (book review), 1, 28–30

Procolobus badius waldroni, 6, 322

Propithecus spp., browse in diet, Duke University Primate Center, 3, 190

Psarocolius decumanus, husbandry and breeding, Rheine Zoo, 2, 124

Pseudois nayaur szechuanensis, breeding, Tallinn Zoo, 2, 117–118

Pseudophryne corroboree, Melbourne Zoo, 6, 370

Pteropus rodricensis, Chester Zoo, 1, 45–46

Puffin, horned, see Fratercula corniculata

Python, blood, see Python curtus

Python curtus, reproductive cycle, 5, 296–297

Pyxis planicauda,

breeding, Jersey Zoo, 4, 238

breeding, Knoxville Zoo, 8, 499

Rabbit, pygmy, see Brachylagus idahoensis

Rainforest and Tropical Butterfly Centre, Yvoir, Belgium, Cameroon pygmy exhibition, 6, 377

Randers Regnskov Tropical Zoo, Denmark, conservation-friendly souvenirs, 4, 242

Rat, Madagascan giant jumping, see Hypogeomys antimena

Rattlesnake, Aruba Island, see Crotalus durissimus unicolor

Ray, star, see Potamotrygon sp.

Reintroduction or release,

European wild cat, Germany, 3, 191

gorilla, Congo and Gabon, 3, 175

orang-utan, Borneo, 3, 167–168

Père David's deer, China, 5, 317

white-winged guan, Peru, 1, 33

Reptiles, vitamin D3 research, John Ball Zoo, 2, 110–111

Rescue and rehabilitation,

drill, Nigeria, 6, 355–356

orang-utan, Borneo, 3, 167–168

Rheine Zoo, husbandry and breeding, crested oropendola, 2, 124

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

Rhinoceros unicornis,

Amersfoort Zoo, 1, 43–44

prolific females, 7, 414–415

Rhynochetos jubatus, breeding, Walsrode Bird Park, 2, 119–120

Riddle's Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary, Greenbrier, Arkansas, U.S.A., musth research, 3, 183–184

Riga Zoo, Latvia,

annual report 2001, 7, 426–429

breeding, kiang, 7, 428–429

breeding, Tonkin bug-eyed frog, 6, 373–374

Riverbanks Zoo, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A., 1, 52; 4, 242–243; 7, 440

Rolling Hills Refuge, Salina, Kansas, U.S.A., environmental enrichment, giraffe, 6, 374

Rome Zoo, Italy, taxonomic study, bongo, 2, 122–123

Rotterdam Zoo, the Netherlands,

annual report 2001, 7, 429–435

dietary study, Galapagos giant tortoise, 1, 62

time-budget study, king penguin, 7, 431

Saguinus bicolor, metabolic bone disease, Jersey Zoo, 4, 252

Saimiri spp., European zoos, 7, 390–395

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

contraceptive research, 2, 115–116

fear of pomegranates, black-handed spider monkey, 3, 187

horned puffin, 6, 374–375

nutrition, orang-utan, 4, 243–244

quarantine facility, 1, 52–53

`River's Edge' exhibit, 3, 184–185

Saitama Children's Zoo, Japan, breeding, Manchurian, long-eared desert, four-toed and Brandt's hedgehogs and lesser hedgehog tenrec, 6, 375–376

Salamander, Chinese giant, see Andrias davidianus

San Antonio Zoo, Texas, U.S.A.,

breeding, Rowley's palm viper, 2, 120–121

tusk maintenance, common hippo, 4, 243

San Diego Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species (CRES), California, U.S.A.,

genetic variation research, 5, 292–293

reproductive research, white rhino, 1, 53–54

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

aggression control in bachelor herd, fringe-eared oryx, 1, 63

behavioural study, giraffe, 7, 440–442

nutrition, bee-eaters, 3, 185–186

semen production data, cheetah, 1, 61

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

breeding, Anegada iguana, 1, 54

hormonal and behavioural study, giant panda, 3, 191

reproductive research, koala, 2, 116–117

San Francisco Zoo, U.S.A., male koala dies at 19, 2,121

Santago Rare Leopard Project, Welwyn, U.K., breeding, Persian leopard, 6, 377

Sapporo Maruyama Zoo, Japan, breeding, Chinese alligator, 6, 376

Schwerin Zoo, Germany,

new lion exhibit, 5, 309–311

Siberian tiger enclosure, 1, 54–55

Sea dragon, weedy, see Phyllopteryx taeniolatus

Sea lion, Californian, see Zalophus californianus

Sea star, slender, see Luidia clathrata

Sea World, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, new exhibit, polar bear, 1, 55–56

Seal, common (harbour), see Phoca vitulina; grey, see Halichoerus grypus; northern elephant, see Mirounga angustirostris

Seattle Aquarium, Washington, U.S.A., stillborn sea otter, 5, 311

Sharks, training, John G. Shedd Aquarium, 8, 498–499

Sheep, Barbary (aoudad), see Ammotragus lervia; Sichuan blue, see Pseudois nayaur szechuanensis

Sifaka, see Propithecus spp.

Singapore Zoo, mating and birth behaviour, oriental small-clawed otter, 1, 19–22

Sloth, two-toed, see Choloepus didactylus

Snow-cock, Himalayan, see Tetraogallus himalayensis

Spheniscus humboldti,

behavioural research, Landau Zoo, 6, 382

optimum breeding conditions, 3, 189

Spoonbill, black-faced, see Platalea minor

Sterna caspia, Oregon Coast Aquarium, 1, 51

Stork, black, see Ciconia nigra; oriental white, see C. boyciana; white, see C. ciconia

Strigops habroptilus, in situ conservation, 4, 231–232

Struthio camelus, amputation of toe, Marwell Zoo, 6, 369–370

Suffolk Wildlife Park, Kessingland, U.K., 3, 132–140; 7, 442

Sylvicapra grimmia, management, Duiker and Mini-Antelope Breeding and Research Institute, 4, 249–250

Taiyuan Zoo, Shanxi, China, ninth calf born to female giraffe, 4, 246

Tallinn Zoo, Estonia, breeding, Sichuan blue sheep and Steller's sea eagle, 2, 117–118

Tama Zoo, Tokyo, Japan,

breeding, Japanese golden eagle, 1, 56–57

hand-rearing and return to biological or foster parents, oriental white stork, black-faced spoonbill, black stork and Siberian crane, 2, 118–119

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

Tapir, Baird's, see Tapirus bairdi; Malayan, see T. indicus; mountain, see T. pinchaque; South American, see T. terrestris

Tapirus bairdi, breeding, Brevard Zoo, 4, 236–237

Tapirus indicus, breeding, Belfast Zoo, 4, 236

Tapirus pinchaque, breeding, Los Angeles Zoo, 2, 112–113

Tapirus terrestris,

female gives birth to 11 calves, Zürich Zoo, 3, 187

television as environmental enrichment, Twycross Zoo, 2, 121

Taronga Zoo, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, breeding, Andean condor, 3, 186

Tenrec, lesser hedgehog, see Echinops telfairi

Tern, Caspian, see Sterna caspia

Territory Wildlife Park, Northern Territory, Australia, hanging by wings, rufous owl, 8, 501

Tetraogallus himalayensis, husbandry and breeding, Tierpark Berlin, 7, 446–447

Theloderma corticale, breeding, Riga Zoo, 6, 373–374

Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, Germany,

behaviour, Somali wild ass, 2, 127

breeding, Asian elephant, 1, 59

husbandry and breeding, Himalayan snow-cock, 7, 446–447

new bird of prey and owl enclosures, 4, 244

Tiger, Siberian (Amur), see P. t. altaica

Tiliqua nigrolutea, reproductive evaluation, 5, 316

Toads, new exhibit, Moody Gardens, 4, 240

Tokyo Sea Life Park, Japan,

husbandry problems, rockhopper penguin, 5, 312

seaweed cultivation, 4, 245

Toledo Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A., breeding, François's langur, 6, 377

Tolypeutes matacus, breeding, Poznan Zoo, 2, 115

Tortoise, Galapagos giant, see Geochelone nigra; Madagascar flat-tailed (kapidolo), see Pyxis planicauda; ploughshare, see Geochelone yniphora; star, see Geochelone elegans

Touracos, nutrition, 2, 106–107

Trachypithecus francoisi, breeding, Toledo Zoo, 6, 377

Trachypithecus vetulus monticola, breeding, Belfast Zoo, 2, 106

Tragelaphus eurycerus, taxonomic study, Rome Zoo, 2, 122–123

Trimeresurus fasciatus, breeding Dallas Zoo, 1, 46–47

Trogon, Diard's, see Harpactes diardii; Javan, see Apalharpactes reinwardtii; red-headed, see H. erythrocephala; white-tailed, see Trogon viridis

Trogon viridis, breeding, National Aquarium in Baltimore, 5, 309

Trogons (book review), 2, 94

Tursiops truncatus,

breeding, World of the Sea, Harderwijk, 1, 59

social stress, 4, 255


confiscated, Hong Kong, 2, 98–99; 4, 232

conservation project, Münster Zoo, 2, 114–115

Twycross Zoo, U.K., television as environmental enrichment, South American tapir, 2, 121

Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, Japan,

aye-aye, 3, 186

breeding, pygmy hippo, 8, 501

crested ibis, 4, 245–246

Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), history (book review), 4, 228–229

University of Georgia Marine Education Center and Aquarium, Skidaway Island, Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A., research into stress of handling, slender sea star, 1, 57–58

Ursus americanus, mixed exhibit with Barbary macaque and other monkey species, Woburn Safari Park, 8, 503

Ursus arctos, live internet pictures of breeding den, Orsa Grönklitt Bear Park, 2, 115

Ursus maritimus,

breeding, Denver Zoo, 6, 361

Milwaukee County Zoo, history, 7, 404–413

new exhibit, Detroit Zoo, 1, 47–48

new exhibit, Sea World, Surfers Paradise, 1, 55–56

Varanus komodoensis, swallows stuffed toy, Minnesota Zoo, 4, 240

Viper, banded pit, see Trimeresurus fasciatus; Rowley's palm, see Bothriechis rowleyi

Vultur gryphus, breeding, Taronga Zoo, 3, 186

Waikiki Aquarium, Hawaii, U.S.A., visitor's report, 3, 186–187

Waldrapp, see Geronticus eremita

Walsrode Bird Park, Germany,

breeding, kagu, great and red birds of paradise, and Madagascar crested ibis, 2, 119–120

breeding, Javan, red-headed and Diard's trogons, 8, 501–502

Wetland Centre, Barnes, London, U.K., wild bitterns seen, 2, 121

Wheater, Roger J., receives Heini Hediger Award from WAZA, 1, 58–59

Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, U.K., breeding, white rhino, 4, 246

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Martin Mere, U.K., 6, 377

Wilhelma Zoo, Stuttgart, Germany,

behaviour, Somali wild ass, 2, 127

breeding, bonobo, 8, 502

Wissel Zoo, Epe, the Netherlands, foot-and-mouth disease crisis, 1, 63

Woburn Safari Park, U.K.,

Barbary macaque, 8, 503

mixed exhibit, American black bear and four monkey species, 8, 503

sells banana seeds with elephant manure, 6, 377

Wolf, maned, see Chrysocyon brachyurus; Mexican, see Canis lupus baileyi

Woodpecker, white-backed, see Dendrocopos leucotos

World of Birds Wildlife Sanctuary and Monkey Park, Cape Town, South Africa, annual report 2001, 5, 302–303

World of the Sea, Harderwijk, the Netherlands, breeding, bottle-nosed dolphin, 1, 59

World Owl Trust, Muncaster Castle, Cumbria, U.K., red kite, 7, 442–443

Yerkes Primate Research Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., forming new group, chimpanzee, 3, 192

Zalophus californianus, interaction with common hippo, Longleat Safari Park, 7, 443

Zoo Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., socialization study, gorilla, 1, 61

Zoo Biology, history, 3, 142–150


China and Taiwan, animal exchange programme, 1, 59

founders, British, 3, 130

history and tradition, 2, 94–96 (book review); 8, 452–464

`lost', Europe, 3, 151–163; 4, 225–226

museums, proposed, 4, 194–195

publications, inaccuracy, 7, 386–388

sales of endangered species products, 4, 233

special evenings for ill and disabled children, the Netherlands, 3, 170

`virtual', computer game, 3, 169

Zürich Zoo, Switzerland,

dietary study, Galapagos giant tortoise, 1, 62

female South American tapir gives birth to 11 calves, 3, 187

social study, buffy-headed capuchin, 2, 126–127