CONTENTS 

International Zoo News Vol. 45/8 (No. 289) December 1998

EDITORIAL Page 466
FEATURE ARTICLES

Hagenbeck at 150

Herman Reichenbach

Page 468

Hands Off, Hands On: Some Aspects of Keeping Elephants

Jeannette Schmid

Page 478

Notes from a King Penguin Egg Collecting Expedition

Roger G. Sweeney

Page 487

Breeding the Hawk-headed Parrot: an Overview

Maarten de Ruiter

Page 495

Letters to the Editor Page 497
Book Review Page 499
Miscellany Page 501
International Zoo News Page 502
Recent Articles Page 513
Index to Contributors, Vol. 45 Page 517
Index to Books Reviewed, Vol. 45 Page 519
Subject Index, Vol. 45 Page 519

Cover Illustration: The Arctic Panorama at Hagenbeck, c. 1925. (Photo: Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark)


EDITORIAL

Am I deluding myself, or have the anti-zoo campaigners – at any rate, in Britain – become far less vociferous and influential in the last year or two? The thought occurred to me last night (17 November) as I was watching the first programme in a six-part series on ITV television, Aspinall's Animals, which follows the work of Howletts and Port Lympne Wild Animal Parks. The highlight, to my mind, was the exciting footage of the rescue of a new-born Asian elephant at Port Lympne from a mother with a record of infanticide; but John Aspinall was given several opportunities – and will no doubt have many more in subsequent programmes – to air his forthright views on conservation and captive breeding. Tomorrow I shall be watching the last programme in a BBC series of `fly-on-the-wall' documentaries starring junior keepers at Paignton Zoo. Here, the human subjects have been given more prominence than the animals; but the message comes across strongly that these are dedicated young people doing worthwhile work. Both series will, I hope, be watched by millions of viewers, who will be left with a feeling that Howletts, Port Lympne and Paignton are doing a good job. And next week, I notice, a half-hour BBC programme will celebrate the achievements of Molly Badham, the founder of Twycross Zoo. Are zoos becoming politically correct again?

The animal rights movement in Britain has never been more active. Within the last few days the government has announced a ban on the testing of cosmetics on live animals; there is a strong possibility that hunting with dogs will become illegal in the near future. Even the battery-hen system – in numerical terms probably the worst abuse of all – is coming under increasing criticism. I support – passively – the pro-animal activists in all these campaigns. But this, like all radical movements, has its lunatic fringe; and the recent release of thousands of mink from a fur farm in Hampshire was an unpleasant example of just how lunatic some self-proclaimed `animal-lovers' can be. One spokesman tried to justify this action by claiming that `a few days of freedom' was preferable to a lifetime's captivity; the real fate of these frightened, starving animals, and the damage the few survivors might do to the natural ecosystem, obviously never entered his head. The thought of such people turning their attention to zoos is an appalling one. So if public opinion is indeed moving towards the view that zoos are on balance a good thing for animals, this is something for which we can all feel profoundly grateful.

Nicholas Gould



Hagenbeck's Art Nouveau main entrance of 1907, with its sculptures of exotic animals and Nubian and Red Indian warriors. (Photo: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte)

An early view of the Africa Panorama, with the artificial mountain in the background. (Photo: Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark)

HAGENBECK AT 150

BY HERMAN REICHENBACH

The zoological park in Hamburg, Germany, Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark, celebrated its sesquicentennial in 1998. It celebrated its 90th anniversary only the year before. Chutzpa? In German we have the saying: celebrate when the opportunity arises (man muss die Feste feiern, wie sie fallen). The six extra decades between '97 and '98, that is, between 1848 and 1907, are explained easily enough: the zoo has a long prehistory. The local historical museum mounted a large and attractive special exhibition on the Hagenbecks' 150 zoo years. The German Zoo Directors Association, itself the world's oldest zoo federation, held its annual conference in Hamburg. Zoohistorica, the annual international trade fair and auction of zoo collectibles, was staged this year at Hagenbeck, as the locals call their zoo for short. Two fat books (to be reviewed in a future issue of I.Z.N.) were published to commemorate the event. The local papers, of course, were full of retrospective stories.

Hamburg's 27-hectare (65-acre) zoo is genuinely unique. All zoo historians – and many others even only mildly interested in zoos – know the name Hagenbeck as that of an innovator if not inventor of the modern zoological park. Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark was the first in the world to combine the modern zoo elements of ersatz landscapes, moated, barless enclosures, and mixed-species exhibits of largely acclimatised animals. Arguably, it still has the most attractive examples of the innovation for which Carl Hagenbeck Jr (1844–1913), the founder of the Tierpark (`animal park'), received a patent in 1896: the zoo panorama. That's a series of enclosures built as stages, each behind and slightly higher than the one in front, separated from each other and the public by concealed moats, hedges and paths. The term `stage' can be taken in its theatrical sense: Carl Hagenbeck Jr, originally an animal dealer, was well aware of, and not at all apologetic about, the fact that he was also a showman. He was one of the first `zoological gardeners' (to adapt a German term) to recognise the importance of public relations in `selling' not only his zoo, but his animal dealership and, when he had either, circus or ethnographic show. P.T. Barnum was his idol in that field, and he admitted it to anyone who asked. That was one of the reasons why it was not until his great-grandson took over that a Hagenbeck was invited to become a member of the venerable Zoo Directors Association.

Hamburg's zoo is unique in another way: it is not only privately owned by a single family, but by one now in its sixth generation of running the business. A Chinese saying has the founding generation establishing a business, the second one building it up, and the third generation squandering it. It is only legitimate and certainly understandable if heirs in the fifth and sixth generations have other interests than those of their forefathers, but the current owners of the Tierpark, the cousins Dr Carl Claus Hagenbeck (born 1941) and Caroline Hagenbeck (born 1959), have kept their heritage and, if their interests do occasionally wander off in other directions, remain aware of their responsibility to town and Tierpark. A Confucian attitude, perhaps, but they do well enough financially to impress a Deng Xiaoping as well. The Hagenbecks are rather proud of the fact that theirs is the only major zoo in the country to get by without government subsidies. (And the city-state of Hamburg is so eager to keep it that way, that they will submit to almost any whim of the family. When, for example, private investors suggested building an oceanarium in Hamburg, the local government snuffed out the idea when the Hagenbecks reminded them that a super-aquarium would, of course, compete for visitors.)

The Burmese Temple Terrace was built in 1913 for an ethnographic show; it is now used for (German) fast food. (Photo: Herman Reichenbach)

If the Tierpark's history began with its opening in 1907, its prehistory began in 1848. According to family legend, the symbiosis of Hagenbeck and animals began with the purchase of six common seals (Phoca vitulina) from fishermen in whose nets the animals accidentally got entangled. The fishmonger Carl Hagenbeck Sr (1810–1887) had a contract with them, obliging him to buy everything they caught in their nets. After putting the seals on exhibition at a local fairground and in Berlin, he sold them, thus starting what was to become, by the 1870s, the world's premier wild-animal dealership. Germany only had four real zoos in the 1850s (if one includes Vienna, which was considered a part of Germany at the time), so most of the customers were owners of travelling menageries. The business was small enough to be run out of Hagenbeck's fishmonger's shop (a building which still stands) near the St Pauli, Hamburg, fish market. By 1863, however, it had outgrown the shop, and Hagenbeck acquired the nearby Handels-Menagerie, the `animal dealer's menagerie' of Gotthold Jamrach, father of Charles Jamrach of London, Europe's leading animal dealer at the time. By coincidence, 1863 was also the year the Hamburg Zoological Garden first opened its gates. The society-run zoo was one of Europe's major gardens until it closed down, a victim of the Great Depression and competition from Hagenbeck, in 1930. Although small, Hagenbeck's menagerie was the first zoo in Europe to exhibit the Sumatran rhinoceros and (since ancient Roman times) the African black rhinoceros.

In 1866, Carl Hagenbeck Sr passed on proprietorship of the menagerie to his eldest son, Carl Hagenbeck Jr (the Carl Hagenbeck, as far as most people are concerned). Hagenbeck Jr moved his enterprise in 1874 to Neuer Pferdemarkt (`New Horse Market'), a mile and a half north of the Handels-Menagerie. It was only two acres, less than a hectare, in size, but given the imposing name `Carl Hagenbeck's Thierpark' (to use the old spelling of that time). The plot is now a school yard, but the buildings surrounding it at the time are largely still there, giving one today a good impression of the proportions of the small zoo. One can only envy those living in the blocks of flats around the zoo grounds as they peered down from their windows at the enormous traffic in animals occurring below. (Presumably, one could also pity the animals in that `prehistoric' age of caring for wild beasts.)

The junior Hagenbeck's experience in trading in, dealing with, and caring for animals, as well as his showman's instinct in displaying them, encouraged him to build the new, and new type of, zoo now associated with his name. When the current Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark first opened to the public on 7 May 1907, in what was then the northern suburb of Stellingen, it created a sensation difficult to appreciate today. Only two panoramas with moated exhibits existed originally: `Africa' and the `Arctic'. Yet the rush to see a lions' den without bars was so great that Hagenbeck could, and had to, demand an extra fee to approach the moat, just to keep the crowds back. Only one other panorama was later conceived, but never quite completed: `India', in the late 1930s, with the first moated exhibit for elephants. After World War II (when a 1943 air-raid had destroyed some 80% of the Tierpark), the India panorama was actually pruned, and – much to the consternation of genuine `Hagenbeckers' – it is today hardly recognisable (and never signposted) as such. The tiger enclosure, although very attractively landscaped with its water moat for tigers to bathe in, was built in 1953 outside the panorama; the site where it was intended to be is still empty. The moat of the gaur enclosure now has the gaur house up front sitting right over it. The enclosure originally occupied by Indian hyaenas is now occupied by coatis: cute, popular, but not Indian.

The right mix of animals is always a challenge to a zoo director. Hagenbeck was once renowned for what one would now call its biodiversity. The writer Charles Peel wrote in 1903 that Hagenbeck's collection was the most valuable in the world. But of course, it was the animal trade that ensured the enormous variety of species a visitor could see over a year; many, if not most, of the animals in the new Tierpark in its early years were themselves just there `on a visit'. Like most zoos today, Hagenbeck has cut back considerably on the number of species exhibited. In an interview for I.Z.N., Senior Director Dr Carl Claus Hagenbeck, a veterinarian by training and the first Hagenbeck with a college degree, candidly explained the reason: animals cost keepers cost money. Anyone running a zoo, most people in general, appreciate the fact that the percentage of total operating costs spent on personnel is much higher today than, say, only 20 years ago. Dr Hagenbeck, a tall, slim figure bearing a remarkable resemblance to his great-grandfather Carl Hagenbeck Jr, is also convinced that most visitors don't need and don't really want too much variety; collecting zoological `jewels' is a luxury the Tierpark can ill afford. Important are the `must-be-there animals': lions, tigers, zebras, giraffes, camels, monkeys (what species is not really important), penguins (easy-to-keep Humboldts will do) and especially elephants: breeding Indian elephants is the pride of Hagenbeck, and the birth of an elephant can almost double the attendance.

Reconstruction after World War II, with bulldozer and working elephants. (Photo: Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark)

This year, despite the sesquicentennial, has not been a good one for Hagenbeck. Hamburg has had perhaps the coldest and wettest summer of the last 25 years (and north-west Germany has never been known for nice summers). The way the year is going, the Tierpark will just breach the 700,000-mark, and that in a conurbation with a population of 2,500,000. (The high entrance prices also deter visitors: 21 marks for adults, 16 for children of six and older, are tops in the country.) In Germany, at least, zoos with the largest number of species still get the largest number of visitors. The Walsrode Vogelpark, an hour's drive south of Hamburg, with `just' birds, but a thousand species of them, has the highest ratio of visitors to local population of any live-animal collection in Europe: one million to 30,000. Hagenbeck has only about 350 species, and over half of those are in the Troparium (a vivarium which does have one of the most beautiful and successful coral-reef aquaria anywhere). The animals for which Hagenbeck is zoo-historically best known are mostly gone: no rhinoceroses of any kind, no pygmy hippopotamuses (first kept in 1884) or even common hippopotamuses, no Przewalski's horses (which Carl Hagenbeck Jr first introduced to Europe), no elephant or leopard seals (ditto). The only `classic' Hagenbeck animal still around is the walrus Antje, a magnificent tusker. But at 22, she's an alte Dame, and when the time comes she may well not be replaced.

Josef Pallenberg's triceratops and crocodilian statues, part of the dinosaur landscape of 1909. (Photo: Herman Reichenbach)

Hagenbeck advertises itself as `Europe's most beautiful park'. Now that is chutzpa, although one might argue that it is the most beautifully landscaped zoo: the panoramas; the artificial mountain sculptured by the Swiss artist Urs Eggenschwyler; the Japanese Island and Lake; the sculpture garden of life-sized dinosaurs; the monumental main gate with its statuary by Josef Pallenberg and Rudolf Franke; the innovative `shop-window', the moated bear enclosure at the main gate that can be observed from both outside and within the Tierpark. It was only in 1997 that the historical core was listed as a monument. The Hagenbecks need not worry, however, that having their zoo listed will hinder maintenance: it might even help get funds. Only once, in the late 1960s, did the Hagenbecks receive a subsidy – for a dolphinarium they did not really want. Back then, however, dolphinaria were all the fad, and the city of Hamburg had originally wanted to build one on the downtown site, now a public park, of the old Hamburg Zoo. Fearing that the new dolphinarium could be the first step to recreating the old garden, the Hagenbecks rather insisted that if the city fathers wanted a dolphinarium, they could pay for one in Stellingen. Which they did.

The only really new construction at Hagenbeck in the last ten years is the large and attractive mandrill complex, completed last year at a cost of 600,000 marks (£200,000 or $340,000). In the last few years, over ten million marks have been invested in the zoo's infrastructure and renovation of older structures, work not immediately obvious to visitors. Money for new construction is dependent, say the Hagenbecks, on the fulfilment of a new hotel and hospital project. The Hagenbecks have traditionally stood on two (or more) legs: in addition to the zoo they had had the animal trade and/or circus. The importing and exporting of wild animals, needless to say, is a thing of the past; the circus had its last curtain call as long ago as 1954. Hagenbeck has resisted, fortunately, the siren of fun-fair commercialism, although in its early years it leased out a tract of land for an amusement park. It does have one tacky children's ride, coach and elephant rides, and it does permit the feeding of at least some animals, including elephants – the only major zoo in Germany to do so. But Busch Gardens, Tampa, Florida, where rollercoasters shade the paddocks, is not its model for the future.

With money from the sale of land for a new, private hospital for bone and joint surgery, a fifty-million-mark hotel was to be built that should have opened this year. The hotel itself – that was the hope – would be filled by friends and relatives of hospital patients. And the Hagenbecks would have their `second leg' again, albeit of an unzoological nature. Unfortunately, although contracts were signed, the hospital company is virtually bankrupt. For the new, six-million-mark Troparium, for which the dolphinarium was torn down, the eight-million-mark ape house, the million-mark leopard enclosure, the new main entrance with its `shop-window' Bactrian camel enclosure, the blueprints and architectural models are there. And they look good. But until financing is secure, everything is now on hold. This autumn a friends-of-the-zoo society was founded; a foundation to support the zoo privately was established this spring. Being privately instead of municipally- or society-owned, Hagenbeck has a difficult time collecting donations. Building a private mansion for one of the family within eyesight of every visitor entering and leaving the zoo did not help to raise a sense of urgency. But the Tierpark is probably Hamburg's most sacred cow, and the European Union's wealthiest metropolis will not let it go the way of Bellevue, Manchester – or the old Hamburg Zoological Garden. Dr Hagenbeck's second daughter Bettina (born 1971) is a keen zoologist who lived for several years in South Africa and is married to another zoologist with a Ph.D. from Johannesburg. The family should remain loyal to Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark – for another generation at least.

Sources

Anon. (1992): Super-Aquarium: Hagenbecks Angst vor einer Pleite. Hamburger Morgenpost, 29 December 1992, p. 11.

Anon. (1996): Der Poker um die Endo-Klinik. Hamburger Abendblatt, 8 March 1996, p. 9.

Anon. (1997): Damp finanziert die neue Endo-Klinik. Hamburger Abendblatt, 10 December 1997, p. 13.

Anon. (1998): Sie wollen den Tierpark helfen. Hamburger Abendblatt, 16 May 1998, p. 13.

Bargen, S. von (1996): Denkmalschutz für Hagenbeck. Hamburger Abendblatt, 12 December 1996, p. 13.

Brinkmeier, M. (1998): 1500 Quadradmeter zum Abtauchen. Hamburger Abendblatt, 13 January 1998, p. 13.

Fleck, D.C. (1997): Hanseatisch, praktisch, gut: Sachverstand statt Emotionen. Die Welt (Hamburg), 21 February 1997, p. H3.

Geisler, B. (1997): Ärger um zwei grosse Bauprojekte. Hamburger Abendblatt, 26 August 1997, p. 11.

Geissler, A. (1996): Neubaupläne der Endo-Klinik drohen zu scheitern. Welt am Sonntag (Hamburg), 28 July 1996, p. 77.

Gretzschel, M., and Pelc, O. (1998): Hagenbeck: Tiere, Menschen, Illusionen. Bücher & mehr, Hamburg.

Grosse, A. (1996): Der Privatzoo kommt ohne Subventionen aus. Handelsblatt (Düsseldorf), 10 September 1996, p. B20.

Hamacher, E. (1994): Rechnen mit Robben und Reptilien. Hamburger Abendblatt, 6 August 1994, p. 17.

Korn, S. (1995): Spenden und Erbschaften: Hagenbeck ist gerettet. Hamburger Abendblatt, 25 October 1995, p. 11.

Krohn, O. (1994): Geh'n wir mal zu Hagenbeck. Die Zeit (Hamburg), 12 August 1994, p. 43.

Peel, C.V.A. (1903): The Zoological Gardens of Europe, p. 235. Robinson, London.

Reichenbach, H. (1980): Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark and modern zoological gardens. Journal for the Bibliography of Natural History 9: 573–585.

Reichenbach, H. (1996): A tale of two zoos: the Hamburg Zoological Garden and Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark. In New Worlds, New Animals: from Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century (eds. R.J. Hoage and W.A. Deiss), pp. 51–62. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Rieke-Müller, A., and Dittrich, L. (1998): Der Löwe brüllt nebenan. Böhlau, Cologne and Vienna.

Rüttgerodt-Riechmann, I., and Schmal, H. (1997): Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark. Denkmalpflege Hamburg 15: 1–54.

Schütte, G. (1995): Balanceakt der `zoologistischen' Art. Die Welt (Hamburg), 29 November 1995, p. H4.

Herman Reichenbach, Paul-Sorge-Strasse 74, 22459 Hamburg, Germany.

Volunteers needed

Interested professional zookeepers are wanted for help in training zoo staff in areas of S.E. Asia. Also to assist in other projects. Any interested parties please contact through the following e-mail address: volunteers@pobox.com.



HANDS OFF, HANDS ON: SOME ASPECTS OF KEEPING ELEPHANTS

BY JEANNETTE SCHMID

Introduction

In most zoos and circuses elephants are kept shackled for several hours each day. This practice is based on the traditional treatment of temple elephants in Asia, who are kept shackled at all times, day and night (Jaeggi, 1993; Kurt, 1995). In Europe chaining of elephants started in the second half of the 19th century (Haufellner et al., 1993; Kurt, 1993). At this time a lot of elephants were imported into Europe, and zoos and circuses started to keep more than the single elephant which had been the norm up until then. Chaining elephants made it possible to keep more animals in a small space. This is the main reason why elephants are kept shackled even today.

Nowadays the public shows great interest in animal welfare and various Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals fight for improvements in keeping conditions. As a result of this pressure the tasks of zoos have changed. Today the quality of husbandry is more important than the presentation of numerous species. In accordance with this new trend, a few European zoos have introduced new concepts for keeping elephants without chains (Ruempler, 1993; Bleijenberg, 1995; Wiedenmayer and Tanner, 1995; Schürer, 1996). But the majority of zoos still keep their elephants shackled at least for several hours daily. For circus elephants, new guidelines have been developed in Germany and Switzerland which demand that elephants are kept without chains for at least several hours per day (Schmid, 1993; Utry, 1993; Schmid, 1995). The new guidelines have improved the situation for circus elephants, but they are still kept shackled the whole night and several hours during the day. The elephant is the only wild animal which is regularly kept shackled nowadays. Such a restricted manner of keeping is unpopular and increasingly the subject of public criticism.

The chaining of elephants requires contact between people and animals. The elephants must be tamed and trained to make daily chaining possible. Training of wild animals is often looked upon by the public as cruel and incompatible with their dignity, and promotes criticism of elephant keeping. Additionally, accidents with elephants support the reservations of the public. The keeping of elephants, in both Europe and Asia, has always involved the injury or death of keepers (Hediger, 1963; Benirschke and Roocroft, 1992; Jaeggi, 1993); but in a situation of great public interest, discussion of elephant keeping increases after each new accident.

Mainly as a result of public pressure, zoos have started to introduce new handling methods for elephants, to prevent accidents and improve keeping conditions. The current management systems are defined by the Elephant Management Task Force of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (Otten, 1994) as Free Contact, Protected Contact, Confined Contact and No Contact:

– Free Contact (or Hands On): Direct handling of an elephant when the keeper and the elephant share the same unrestricted space;

– Protected Contact: Handling of an elephant when the keeper and the elephant do not share the same unrestricted space. Typically in this system the keeper has contact with the elephant through a protective barrier of some type, while the elephant is not spatially confined and may leave the work area at will;

– Confined Contact: Handling of an elephant through a protective barrier where the elephant is spatially confined, as in an elephant restraining chute (ERC);

– No Contact (or Hands Off): Handling of an elephant with no contact made unless the elephant is chemically sedated.

In this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the different keeping systems for the animals, keepers, zoo visitors and the zoos themselves will be discussed, and preconditions for introducing the different systems will be mentioned. Focal points are the Free Contact (Hands on) and No Contact (Hands Off) systems, because Confined Contact and Protected Contact are regarded as additional handling methods in No Contact keeping systems.

Free Contact or Hands On

Free Contact is the management system which is common to the majority of zoos around the world. It is based on the traditional handling of elephants in Asia. The main characteristic of Free Contact handling is the close contact between people and elephants. Close contact is only possible if the animals are tamed and trained to obey commands which regulate the contact. A precondition for this is a qualified keeping staff. Keepers should have experience in training elephants, good knowledge of elephant behaviour, and a realistic and responsible awareness of the danger of working closely with these animals (Roocroft and Zoll, 1994). A good relationship between people and elephants is the main basis for successful training and handling (Koene and Jansen, 1993; Hart, 1994). Where qualified personnel is available, elephants can be taught to obey nearly 30 different commands which make handling easier (Rensch and Altevogt, 1954; Meyer-Holzapfel, 1982; Neuschulz, 1988). Most of the advantages of Free Contact elephant keeping result from this easier handling.

Wild elephants daily care for their skin by bathing, wallowing in mud, sand-bathing and rubbing (McKay, 1973; Moss, 1988). Skin care is necessary to prevent sunburn, drying up and the attacks of parasites (Sikes, 1971; Kuntze, 1989). In the majority of zoos adequate enrichment for skin care is available, in the form of baths, mud-wallows, sand for sand-bathing and stones or trees for rubbing (Grzimek, 1961; Dittrich and Gleitz, 1967; Bürger, 1976; Blaszkiewitz, 1992; Schürer, 1996). If these enrichment objects are not available or the elephants do not make sufficient use of them, additional skin care such as hosing or brushing by the keeper is necessary. This is only possible if the elephants are used to having contact with people in Free Contact keeping.

Besides skin care, the feet of captive elephants must be treated regularly. In the wild, nails and soles are worn down by walking in search of food; in captivity the necessary wear does not take place, because of unsuitable substrate and reduced movement of the animals (Schulze, 1986; Rüedi, 1990; Schmid, 1993). In Free Contact systems the elephants are trained to put their foot on a pedestal and stand still while the keeper treats the foot. Thus it is possible to carry out foot care without stress for the animal.

In the same way some medical treatments, such as routine examinations of blood or teeth, can be carried out without stress for the animals, if they are adequately trained (Dosza, 1969; Puschmann, 1982). Often, too, in Free Contact management systems, small surgical operations can take place with only local anaesthesia. In the same way, scientific physiological investigations are easier to carry out. For example, measurements of heart rate (White et al., 1938; Mill and Kuntze, 1978), hormone analysis (Hodges et al., 1987; Brown et al., 1995) and ultrasonic investigations (Hildebrandt and Göritz, 1995) have taken place in Free Contact systems without anaesthesia for the animals.

For breeding, obviously, it is necessary to keep male elephants. Adult males show regular musth periods which are combined with increased serum testosterone levels (Cooper et al., 1990; Niemüller and

Treatment of nails in Free Contact keeping to compensate for insufficient wear to feet, Allwetterzoo Münster, Germany.

Liptrap, 1991; Lincoln and Ratnasooriya, 1996). During these periods they show increased aggression and irritability, and decreased responsiveness to commands (Jainudeen et al., 1972; Scheurmann and Jainudeen, 1972; Adams, 1981). To guarantee security, bulls are kept in special enclosures which make handling and care possible even during the musth phases (Kock, 1993; Rübel and Tanner, 1993). Trained females are easy to lead and in most cases are used to leaving their groups. So in Free Contact systems it is possible to separate females from the rest of the group during their oestrus and introduce them to the male without any trouble, even during his musth phases. And inbreeding can be excluded as long as it is possible to choose the females who are to be mated. To determine the females' oestrus periods, urine or blood samples for hormone analysis are taken weekly (Brannian et al., 1988; Plotka et al., 1988). In Free Contact systems the elephants are trained for the procedure of blood sampling. For urine samples, the animals can be trained to respond to special commands to urinate. Thus it is possible to take samples without stress and with little loss of time.

When a female gives birth, Free Contact allows keepers to separate the mother from the rest of the group, if this is necessary. Medical treatment or other interventions are possible at all times, and have in some cases saved the life of the mother or baby (Maberry, 1962; Lang, 1963; Haufellner et al., 1993).

The ability to command each elephant of a group makes it possible to intervene in social problems between the animals. In zoos elephant groups are composed arbitrarily, and animals of the same age and from different areas are kept together. Family groups with strong relationships, the group structure which is normal in the wild (Moss, 1988; Sukumar, 1989), are exceptional. Close relationships are also possible in artificially composed zoo groups; but in most cases they are restricted to subgroups of two animals rather than including the whole group (Garai, 1992). Removal and integration of single animals takes place regularly, a situation which does not happen in the wild. The integration of an elephant into an existing group must take place by small stages. In Free Contact systems the keepers can lead the integration and prevent fights and injury to the animals.

Elephant performance at Allwetterzoo Münster, Germany. Training of elephants is used to occupy the animals in the relatively monotonous zoo environment.

Besides the advantages of training elephants for handling, training is also used to occupy the animals mentally and physically (Puschmann, 1982; Neuschulz et al., 1990). Shows which are comparable to circus performances, elephant riding, walks, or working tasks like felling of trees are used to bring variation into the daily routine (Jarofke, 1986, 1988). The additional movement involved in these activities promotes the wearing down of soles and nails (Rüedi, 1990), supports the health of the cardiac-circulatory system (Mill and Kuntze, 1978), and prevents overweight (Kurt and Pucher, 1996).

For the zoos one big advantage of Free Contact is the possibility of keeping a lot of animals in a restricted space. Space and financial resources are the limiting factors in European zoo management. For these reasons, most zoos are unable to expand their elephant enclosures, and Free Contact is the only practicable keeping system.

The possibility of contact between people and elephants can be extended to the visitors. They can be given the possibility of riding, feeding or at least touching the biggest terrestrial mammal on earth. The educational experience of such an event should not be underestimated, and could raise the interest of the public in the species and their situation in their natural habitats (Gould, 1994). On the other hand, the necessary contact between keeper and elephants in Free Contact handling reduces the time during which visitors can observe typical, natural elephant behaviour; this might be considered as a disadvantage at a time when the public shows great interest in nature.

Public feeding enables visitors to have direct contact with the elephants (Allwetterzoo Münster, Germany).

For the zoo management, the main disadvantage of Free Contact keeping is the dependence on qualified keeper staff. Good elephant keepers are very rare; and moreover, independent of the quality of keepers, the possibility of accidents and consequent bad publicity is always present when elephants are kept in Free Contact (Haufellner et al., 1993, 1997).

Taming and training involves the risk of cruelty, mainly if inexperienced or badly-trained people try to work with elephants. The resulting psychological or behavioural disturbances are difficult to assess, even though they have probably always been a major reason for accidents in elephant keeping (Haufellner et al., 1993, Jaeggi, 1993; Haufellner et al., 1997). The main characteristics of keeping elephants in Free Contact compared to the other systems are listed in Table 1.

No Contact or Hands Off

No Contact keeping excludes every contact between people and elephants. All the above-mentioned advantages of Free Contact keeping, which result from the possibility of contact with the animals, must be compensated for by adequate enrichment in No Contact keeping systems (Table 1). Sufficient enrichment for skin care should be available, because additional skin care by the keeper is not possible. Treatment of feet cannot be carried out; the necessary wearing down of soles and nails must take place in the natural way by the animals' movement. And adequate enrichment should be available for the physical and mental occupation of the animals.

In most parts of Europe it is not possible to keep elephants in outside enclosures throughout the year. Thus the requirements for an outside enclosure in No Contact management must be provided indoors as well. Another precondition for No Contact management is the keeping of well-socialised elephants in one group. Arbitrarily composed groups are not possible, because keepers cannot intervene in social conflicts any more.

If all preconditions were met, No Contact keeping would have the advantage that the elephants were kept under nearly natural conditions. No elephant would be kept shackled for several hours daily. Social needs would probably lead to keeping elephants in family groups, as in the wild (Moss, 1988; Sukumar, 1989). The natural group structure and the provision of enrichments for skin care, wear of feet and occupation would enable the animals to perform a majority of their natural behaviour patterns. So zoo visitors would have the chance to observe species-typical behaviour. For the keeper, the risk of being injured or killed by an elephant would be minimized. Special qualifications for elephant keepers are not necessary in No Contact keeping; so the dependence on competent elephant personnel, and the difficulties of judging between them, do not exist for the zoo management any more.

No Contact keeping is a new management system, and experience in achieving the necessary preconditions is very rare. The disadvantages of the system mainly result from this lack of experience. Free Contact keeping has shown that sufficient wearing down of nails and soles cannot be guaranteed, even though the elephants have additional movement in training activities like performances, walks, riding or others. Unquestionably it will be difficult to induce enough movement in No Contact systems. In the wild wear on the feet mainly takes place during foraging, in the form of movements from one feeding place to another and food preparation. Wild elephants are foraging for nearly 75% of the day (McKay, 1973; Wyatt and Eltringham, 1974; Vancuylenberg, 1977). It is impossible to meet this requirement in zoo enclosures. So probably in No Contact keeping additional treatment of feet by humans will still be necessary. To do this elephants will have to be anaesthetised. Anaesthesia is also necessary for every kind of medical treatment under the No Contact system. Anaesthesia for elephants is risky; for example, an anaesthetised elephant lying down in sternal recumbency can suffer progressive respiratory impairment due to the animal's weight on the sternum and diaphragm, which limits the air exchange (Bush, 1996). Controlled lie-down or fixation with ropes before anaesthesia, which minimises this risk, is not possible in No Contact keeping (Bush, 1996).

Table 1. Characteristics of the different elephant keeping systems.

(+ = take place or necessary; +– = possible; – = unnecessary or impossible)

Free No Protected Confined

Contact Contact Contact Contact

Enclosure

enrichments for:

– physical and mental occupation +– + + +

– skin care +– + +– +–

– wearing-down of feet +– + +– +–

separate keeping of bulls + +– +– +–

shackled keeping + – – –

restraining chute – – – +

Handling

training + – + –

high risk of accidents + – – –

treatment without anaesthesia + – + +

intervention in social conflicts + – – –

Visitors

direct contact with the animals + – – –

observation of species-typical behaviour +– + + +

Zoo management

high financial investment – + +– +–

qualified keeper + – + –

Elephants

sufficient movement + – – –

variation and occupation + – – –

nearly natural group structure – + + +

main behavioural needs met +– + +– +–

Experience in ways of guaranteeing enough mental stimulation simply by enriching the enclosure is rare too. So far this kind of enrichment has only been used as an addition to training. The financial investment which would be necessary for the development and construction of adequate enclosures is the main disadvantage for the zoo management if they decide to keep elephants in a No Contact system. Also, indoor and outdoor enclosures must have enough space to meet the animals' requirements – and space, too, is rare in European zoos.

Another management problem will be the composition of the groups. Only the presently available elephants could be used. Building up family groups out of related mothers, or unrelated females with close relationships, and their offspring, would take time. And the problem of what to do with the remaining animals will also arise.

The usual separate housing of bulls must be considered if elephants are kept in No Contact. Separation of single females from the herd to put them with bulls in separate bull enclosures will be more difficult in No Contact than in Free Contact keeping, because the animals are not used to obeying commands. The alternative method will be to keep bulls together with the females. During the musth phases, when they show increased aggression, this might be difficult. The whole enclosure must guarantee secure keeping of musth bulls, which would imply additional financial expenditure.

Protected and Confined Contact

Protected and Confined Contact are additional handling methods in No Contact keeping systems which allow contact with the animals through a protective barrier or a restraining chute. Some of the above-mentioned disadvantages of No Contact systems can be removed if one of these methods is used (Table 1). Skin care, foot care and medical treatment can take place without risk to keepers and veterinarians. So anaesthesia will not have to take place as often as in pure No Contact keeping.

But handling through a protective barrier is only possible if the elephants are trained to obey adequate commands. To educate the animals, Protected Contact requires qualified keeper staff in the same way as Free Contact management. Again, then, the zoo management depends on the availability of good elephant trainers. Even for handling in a restraining chute, as in Confined Contact, it is helpful if the animals are trained to enter it, though this is not essential. The disadvantages of this system are related to welfare. Squeezing between two barriers and tilting to the right or left side is not compatible with welfare considerations in an animal which never voluntarily sets foot on insecure subsoil, avoids long periods in a recumbent position and is not able to jump or gallop.

Conclusion

The necessary activities of humans in Free Contact keeping of elephants, like skin care, treatment of feet, intervention in social conflicts between the animals, and training activities to maintain physical health through additional movement, show that there are great defects in all elephant keeping systems. No other zoo animal is kept in circumstances which necessitate such regular human intervention. Keeping animals in natural social units to prevent behavioural disturbances is achieved with most species in zoos, but not with elephants. Zoo elephant keeping needs innovations, but it makes no sense to compensate for unsolved deficits in enclosure enrichment by the use of restrictive keeping methods such as restraining chutes. The right way will be to remove the deficits, e.g. by enrichment to guarantee the wearing-down of feet, skin care and occupation, as well as by forming natural social units first and then reducing contact between people and elephants. This way would not restrict the mental and physical well-being of the animals.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all the zoos and circuses where I have made my investigations during the past years, for their hospitality and their assistance. I would like to thank Dr Udo Ganslosser, Dr Fred Kurt and Prof. Dr Klaus Zeeb for their help in reviewing this manuscript.

References

Adams, J. (1981): Wild Elephants in Captivity. Center for the Study of Elephants, Carson, California.

Benirschke, K., and Roocroft, A. (1992): Elephant-inflicted injuries. Verhandlungsbericht des 34. Internationalen Symposiums über die Erkrankungen der Zootiere, 239–247.

Blaszkiewitz, B. (1992): Das neue Elefantenhaus im Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 62 (4): 212–221.

Bleijenberg, K. (1995): Development in housing elephants at Rotterdam Zoo. In Proceedings of the Eighth U.K. Elephant Workshop (eds. N.G. Spooner and J.A. Whitear), pp. 53–57. North of England Zoological Society, U.K.

Brannian, F.G., Papkoff, H., and Terranova, P.F. (1988): Short and long phases of progesterone secretion during the oestrous cycle of the African elephant (Loxodonta africana). Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 84: 357–365.

Brown, J., Wemmer, C.M., and Lehnhardt, J. (1995): Urinary cortisol analysis for monitoring adrenal activity in elephants. Zoo Biology 14: 533–542.

Bush, M. (1996): Methods of capture, handling, and anesthesia. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques (eds. D.G. Kleiman, M.E. Allen, K.V. Thompson and S. Lumpkin), pp. 25–40. University of Chicago Press, U.S.A.

Bürger, M. (1976): Ein Haus für Elefanten, Flusspferde und Nashörner im Zoologischen Garten Magdeburg. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 46: 86–98.

Cooper, K.A., Harder, J.D., Clawson, D.H., Fredrick, D.L., Lodge, G.A., Peachey, H.C., Spellmire, T.J., and Winstel, D.P. (1990): Serum testosterone and musth in captive male African and Asian elephants. Zoo Biology 9: 297–306.

Dittrich L., and Gleitz, R. (1967): Neue Tierhäuser und Anlagen im Zoo Hannover. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 34: 3–30.

Dosza, I. (1969): Unterschiede in Haltung und Medikation zwischen Zoo- und Zirkuselefanten. Verhandlungsberichte des 11. Internationalen Symposiums über die Erkrankungen der Zootiere, 249–251.

Garai, M.E. (1992): Special relationship between female Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in zoological gardens. Ethology 90: 187–205.

Gould, N. (1994): Editorial. International Zoo News 41 (5): 2–3.

Grzimek, B. (1961): Das neue Elefantenhaus in Frankfurt (Main). Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 26: 18–26.

Hart, L.A. (1994): The Asian elephant-driver partnership: the drivers' perspectives. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 297–312.

Haufellner, A., Kurt, F., Schilfarth, J., and Schweiger, G. (1993): Elefanten in Zoo und Zirkus. Dokumentation Teil 1: Europa. European Elephant Group.

Haufellner, A., Schilfarth, J., and Schweiger, G. (1997): Elefanten in Zoo und Zirkus. Dokumentation Teil 2: Nordamerika. European Elephant Group.

Hediger, H. (1963): Gefährliche Väter: Elefantenbullen verursachen in Europa fast regelmässig tödliche Unfälle. Das Tier 8: 32–34.

Hildebrandt, T., and Göritz, F. (1995): Sonographischer Nachweis von Leiomyomen im Genitaltrakt weiblicher Elefanten. Verhandlungsberichte des 37. Internationalen Symposiums über die Erkrankungen der Zootiere, 287–294.

Hodges, J.K., McNeilly, A.S., and Hess, D.L. (1987): Circulating hormones during pregnancy in the Asian and African elephants Elephas maximum and Loxodonta africana: a diagnostic test based on the measurement of prolactin. International Zoo Yearbook 26: 285–289.

Jaeggi, P. (1993): In mir ist ein Meer von Traurigkeit – die Leiden der Tempelelefanten. Schweizer Tierschutz, Du und die Natur 120 (3): 4–52.

Jainudeen, M.R., McKay, G.M., Eisenberg, J.F. (1972): Observation on musth in the domesticated Asiatic elephant (Elephas maximus). Mammalia 36: 247–261.

Jarofke, D. (1986): Elefantendressur im Zoologischen Garten Berlin. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 56: 53–62.

Jarofke, D. (1988): Bildbericht über Elefantendressuren in deutschen Zoologischen Gärten. Bongo 14: 11–18.

Kock, K. (1993): Elefantenhaltung im Zoo. Bongo 22: 57–64.

Koene, P., and Jansen, R.G. (1993): Elephant-caretaker Bond and show performance in a zoo. In 3. Joint Meeting 1993, Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology, Berlin (eds. M. Michelmann, H.K. Wirenga and S. Braun), pp. 190–194.

Kuntze, A. (1989): Dermatopathien bei Elefanten und deren Therapie. Kleintierpraxis 34 (8): 405–415.

Kurt, F. (1993): Elefanten im Zirkus. In Elefanten in Zoo und Zirkus. Dokumentation Teil 1: Europa (eds. A. Haufellner, F. Kurt, J. Schilfarth and G. Schweiger), pp. 223–230. European Elephant Group.

Kurt F. (1995): The preservation of Asian elephants in human care – a comparison between the different keeping systems in South Asia and Europe. Animal Research and Development 41: 38–60.

Kurt, F., and Pucher, H. (1996): Körpermasse, Gewicht und Gewichtsschätzung bei Asiatischen Elefanten (Elephas maximus) in Menschenobhut. In Workshop zur Elefantenhaltung in Zoo und Zirkus, pp. 13–20. Allwetterzoo Münster.

Lang, E.M. (1963): Die erste Elefantengeburt in der Schweiz: Elefantenkuh Ceylon bekam ihr Kind in tiefem Schlaf. Das Tier 7: 16–20.

Lincoln, G.A., and Ratnasooriya, W.D. (1996): Testosterone secretion, musth behaviour and social dominance in captive male Asian elephants living near the equator. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 108: 107–113.

Maberry, M.B. (1962): Breeding Indian elephants, Elephas maximus, at Portland Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 4: 80–83.

McKay, G. (1973): Behaviour and ecology of the Asiatic elephant in southeastern Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 125: 1–113.

Meyer-Holzapfel, M. (1982): Reaktionen auf Wortbefehle bei der Dressur von Haus- und Wildtieren. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 52: 271–288.

Mill, J., and Kuntze, A. (1978): Elektrokardiographische Untersuchungen an gesunden und einem kranken Elefanten (Elephas maximus). Verhandlungsberichte des 20. Internationalen Symposiums über die Erkrankungen der Zootiere, 315–326.

Moss, C. (1988): Elephant Memories: Thirteen Years in the Life of an Elephant Family. Elm Tree Books, William Morrow and Co., New York.

Neuschulz, N. (1988): Elefantendressur – I: Lernen und Erinnerungsvermögen. Felis 6: 65–73.

Neuschulz, N., Deicke, M., and Rolle, T. (1990): Elefantenbegabung – II: Magdeburger Elefantendressur. Felis 8: 34–46.

Niemüller, C.A., and Liptrap, R.M. (1991): Altered androstenedione to testosterone ratios and LH concentration during musth in the captive male Asian elephant. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 91: 139–146.

Otten, T. (1994): AZA Elephant Management Guidelines. AZA Communiqué (October 1994), p. 11.

Plotka, E.D., Seal, U.S., Zarembka, F.R., Simmons, L.G., Teare, A., Phillips, L.G., Hinsshaw, K.C., and Wood, D.G. (1988): Ovarian function in the elephant: luteinizing hormone and progesterone cycles in African and Asian elephant. Biology of Reproduction 38: 309–314.

Puschmann, W. (1982): Warum Elefantendressuren? Felis 1: 31–32.

Rensch, B., and Altevogt, R. (1954): Zähmung und Dressurleistungen indischer Arbeitselefanten. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 11: 497–510.

Roocroft, A., and Zoll, D.A. (1994): Managing Elephants. Fever Tree Press, Ramona, California.

Rübel, A., and Tanner, R. (1993): Die Haltung von Elefantenbullen und das Phänomen der `Musth'. Bongo 22: 65–72.

Rüedi, D. (1990): Elefantenhaltung aus der Sicht des Zoo-Tierarztes. Tierärztliche Umschau 45: 199–200.

Ruempler, G. (1993): Ein neues Haltungskonzept für Elefanten in Münster. Bongo 22: 109–116.

Scheurmann, E., and Jainudeen, M.R. (1972): Musth beim Asiatischen Elefanten (Elephas maximus). Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 42: 131–142.

Schmid, J. (1993): Aktivitätenvergleich bei Circus- und Zooelefanten im Paddock und an der Kette. Bongo 22: 91–100.

Schmid, J. (1995): Keeping circus elephants temporarily in paddocks – the effects on their behaviour. Animal Welfare 4 (2): 87–101.

Schürer, U. (1996): Neue Elefantenanlage im Zoologischen Garten Wuppertal. Der Zoologische Garten N.F. 66 (5): 269–283.

Schulze, W. (1986): Zur Haltung von Elefanten im Zirkus mit Berücksichtigung ihrer Minimalbedürfnisse. Praktischer Tierarzt 67: 809–810.

Sikes, S.K. (1971): The Natural History of the African Elephant. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Sukumar, R. (1989): The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press.

Utry, W. (1993): Bemerkungen zur Elefantenhaltung im Zirkus. Tierärztliche Umschau 48: 812–815.

Vancuylenberg, B.W.B. (1977): Feeding behaviour of the Asiatic elephant in south-east Sri Lanka in relation to conservation. Biological Conservation 12: 33–54.

White, P.D., Jenks, J.L., and Benedict, F.G. (1938): The electrocardiogram of the elephant. American Heart Journal 16: 744–750.

Wiedenmayer, C., and Tanner, R. (1995): Untethered housing of Asian elephants at Zürich Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 34: 200–205.

Wyatt, J.R., and Eltringham, S.K. (1974): The daily activity of the elephant in the Rwenzori National Park, Uganda. East African Wildlife Journal 12: 273–289.

Jeannette Schmid, Zoologisches Institut I, Universität Erlangen/Nürnberg, Staudtstr. 5, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany. Correspondence address: Schieffelingsweg 8, 53123 Bonn, Germany (Tel.: 0049–228–623060; E-mail: schmid-berlis.bonn@t-online.de).



NOTES FROM A KING PENGUIN EGG COLLECTING EXPEDITION

BY ROGER G. SWEENEY

Regional collection planning for European zoos places emphasis on their responsibility for the long-term future of the species that they keep, by ensuring that the captive population has the potential to be self-sustaining over several generations. Any species which is considered to be of particular importance becomes the subject of a management plan which begins with the preparation of a regional studbook to better illustrate the demographic and genetic status of the captive population. Should this population be in need of recruitment, zoological collections are encouraged to develop closer links with wild populations and recruit directly from the wild, rather than obtain additional stock – from animal dealers or private collections – which do not have a known history. Loro Parque is currently constructing a new penguin exhibition area which will be the most technically advanced of its kind in Europe, allowing for Antarctic species to be maintained at an air temperature below freezing point. The first species to be established in the new facility will be the king penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus). The current European population of this species does not produce a sufficient number of offspring to be considered viable, so the recruitment of additional founder stock was required to improve the future prospects of the captive population. Against this background, Loro Parque, jointly with a North American zoo, funded a collecting expedition in March 1998 to bring back fertile eggs of the king penguin for hatching and rearing in captivity. I represented Loro Parque on the expedition in my role as curator, and following are my notes from the trip.

The expedition was jointly funded by Loro Parque (Tenerife, Spain) and Moody Gardens (Galveston, Texas) with the aim of collecting just over 200 fertile eggs to be returned to the two collections, 100 eggs to Moody Gardens and 117 to Loro Parque. Moody Gardens was represented by its curator, Patrick Sharkey, and Douglas Kempler, who is the director of the new aquarium currently being built at that collection. The trip was organised by a U.S. consultant group (WCI) whose working team on the expedition consisted of Scott Drieschmann, Mrs Corey Drieschmann, Frank Todd, Frank Towhey, Ricardo Matus and Mrs Betsey Pincheira Lazo. It was arranged that the various team members would meet in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the most southerly city in Argentina (and, indeed, in the world), where a ship would take them to South Georgia to collect eggs from two locations. The permit to allow the collecting of eggs was granted on the strict condition that they could only be collected in the last two weeks of March, the reason being that the eggs in question would not be hatching until the beginning of the winter and that any offspring would certainly die, being too young to survive the Antarctic winter. It was also clearly defined in the permit that the offspring reared could not be sold for commercial gain, or transferred to another zoological park, without prior agreement of the Falkland Islands government. The two zoos also undertook to provide the Falkland Islands authorities with details of the methods, results, and all scientific data collected from the rearing of the birds and their keeping and breeding thereafter.

In the early afternoon of 16 March, I boarded an internal Argentine flight from Buenos Aires to Ushuaia. The flight ended with breathtaking views as we descended into the Patagonian landscape of a rolling series of sharp mountain peaks, each topped by snow and with beech forest lower down the sides of each slope, making up a scenery unlike anything I had previously seen. Upon landing the group met up and we took a bus to the hotel where we would be spending the night before sailing the next day. Ushuaia is a small town (population around 40,000 people) on the edge of the Beagle Channel, and the short drive from the airport to the hotel passed along the coast and brought views of Magellanic flightless steamer ducks (Trachyeres pteneres) and kelp geese (Chloephaga hybrida).

The morning of 17 March gave us some spare time in the morning before we sailed, for last-minute shopping and to see some of the local scenery. The highlight for me was a trip inland into the foothills of the nearest mountains to see where the glaciers reached down into the beech forest. Half-way through the trip up the mountain by cable car we were surprised and delighted by the sight of an Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) soaring high above us. This was almost certainly the most unexpected sighting of the trip. Later we gathered to board our ship, a former Russian research vessel which nowadays is used for eco-tourism trips to the Antarctic region. This ship, the Professor Multanovskiy, had finished its tour commitments for the season and we were able to negotiate the extra journey before it returned to its home port of St Petersburg during the Antarctic winter. The late afternoon journey through the Beagle Channel out into the open sea provided some interesting birding, including the first of many penguins to be seen on the trip, Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus). Other species seen were giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus), black-browed albatross (Diomedea melanophrys), sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), king cormorant (Phalacrocorax albiventer), kelp gull (Larus dominicanus) and South American tern (Sterna hirundinacea). The only marine mammal sighted on this day was a single southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens).

The next morning, 18 March, we were out into open sea. Several species of seabird that we had seen the day before were still visible – black-browed albatross, giant petrel, sooty shearwater and king cormorant. In addition we now saw wandering albatross (D. exulans), white-chinned petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis), Wilson's storm petrel (Oceanites oceanicus), common diving petrel (Pelecanoides urinatrix berard), Antarctic skua (Catharacta antarctica) and – the most surprising sight – a dark-faced ground tyrant (Muscisaxicola frontalis), which had obviously joined us on the ship at the time of sailing and remained hidden until its sighting on deck the following morning. The next day, 19 March, saw a reduction in the overall numbers of birds seen, as we were further out at sea, but we were pleased to see four species of albatross; in addition to those seen the previous day, we were followed for some time by royal albatross (D. epomophora) and light-mantled sooty albatross (Phoebetria palpebrata), which circled the ship as we progressed in fairly calm seas. Other birds seen on this day included the giant and white-chinned petrels, sooty shearwater and Wilson's storm petrel seen previously, plus the new species white-headed petrel (Pterodroma lessonii), soft-plumaged petrel (P. mollis) and greater shearwater (Puffinus gravis).

On 20 March we crossed the Antarctic convergence zone, which saw a rapid five-degree drop in the water temperature in less than an hour. The passage into cooler waters seemed to mark an increase in sightings of both marine mammals and birds. Mammals seen on this day included fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), hour-glass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger), Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) and southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). Birds seen included the four species of albatross, two of shearwater, four of petrel, and Wilson's storm petrel seen the previous day, as well as common diving petrel and king shag (Phalacrocorax albiventer). Two new species to be recorded on this day were black-bellied storm petrel (Fregetta tropica) and white-crested elaenia (E. albiceps).

We reached the coast of South Georgia just after midday on 21 March. The most exciting feature of the day's bird watching was the presence of large numbers of penguins seen at sea in small flocks, either heading out in search of food or returning to the shore. Three species were seen repeatedly in the sea throughout the day – king, gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and macaroni (Eudyptes chrysolophus). Our first sight of king penguins in the wild was very welcome, as this species was the main focus of our trip. We spent the afternoon following the coastline round to the town of Grytviken. Here we were joined by the marine officer for South Georgia, Pat Lurcock, who was to approve our documentation for the collecting trip and accompany us to ensure good practice was followed during the collection exercise. Now that we had reached the coast, we saw several new bird species in addition to those seen in the last few days, including blue petrel (Halobaena caerulea), blue-eyed shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps), Georgian diving petrel (Pelecanoides georgicus) and snowy sheathbill (Chionis alba). A number of prions were also seen, but species identification could not be confirmed. A pod of hour-glass dolphins again joined the bow of the boat during the morning, and we also had a brief sighting of a minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) about 600 metres off the starboard side of the ship.

We sailed from Grytviken in the early hours of 22 March and by 9.00 a.m. had reached our first destination where egg collection was planned, St Andrew's Bay. From the ship we could see that the coastline was covered with thousands of white spots, each one being a king penguin. The smell was also highly distinctive, even from some distance out in the bay, as the excrement of these birds has a very high uric acid content. Wild colonies of king penguins, which can number up to 35,000 birds, can be smelt from some distance away. We transferred from the ship to the beach by Zodiac inflatable boats, taking with us two portable incubators each with the capacity to hold a few more than 100 eggs. As we neared the shore, the sound of the surf began to be lost below the noise of the wildlife on shore. The beach was overflowing with a mass of diverse fauna. The king penguins were the most numerous species on the beach by far, with thousands of birds making up the colony. The unique breeding cycle of the king penguin – up to 16 months, the slowest of any bird – meant that within the one colony we could see birds at all stages of development – adults in the process of breeding, adults in moult after breeding, sub-adult birds, fully-developed juveniles still with heavy natal down, birds still incubating eggs or newly- hatched chicks, and many chicks of various ages. In among the thousands of king penguins there were also a small number of gentoos, and we had our first sight of chin-strap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica), as a small group of five birds were visible on rocks close to the shore. Two other bird species were prominent on the beach, snowy sheathbills which ran about between the king penguins, always on the lookout for an opportunist meal, and skuas which flew low over the colony, also looking for an opportunist meal in the form of an abandoned egg or chick which could be seized.

Also on the beach were three mammal species. The most numerous by far were the fur seals, which covered most of the moss grassland which ran inland from the gravel beach. Now, in late autumn, most of the adult males had left the breeding grounds, leaving behind mainly adult females and the year's offspring, who were nearly independent by this age. Elsewhere, small groups of female elephant seals could be seen on the beach. The most unexpected mammals to be seen in South Georgia are the herds of reindeer, which were introduced as a source of fresh meat during the period when the whaling and Fur seal industry was at its height. They still survive well today, and we saw a herd of around 14 animals in the area about 400 metres inland from the beach.

Slowly we began the process of egg collection. Working in small teams around the edge of the breeding area of the colony, the females incubating eggs were gently seized from behind and the egg removed from underneath the skin pouch that keeps it balanced upon the bird's feet and taken to the portable incubators. This was a slow and careful process, as each pair of king penguins produce only a single egg. Each time a member of the team either entered or left the interior of the colony, great care had to be taken when walking past the other penguins who were incubating eggs or brooding young chicks. If they became stressed, they might leave their progeny to the mercy of the skuas who floated low above the heads of the colony. We knew that very few, if any, of these late eggs or young chicks would survive the Antarctic winter, but still nobody wanted to interfere with the natural process more than our presence had done already. After nearly three hours' collecting we had reached our initial target and returned to the ship to begin assessment of the eggs. King penguin eggs are large and heavy, measuring up to 117 ´ 82 mm and weighing up to 350 grams. For many years I have worked with procedures for artificial incubation of eggs from many bird species in captivity; but these eggs were difficult to assess due to their thick shell and the fact that they had to be transferred immediately from underneath the parent into the incubator, to prevent their becoming chilled in the harsh climatic conditions. Once back on the ship, where we were able to maintain a warmer air temperature, we began to look at the eggs by shining a light source onto them for a short time, allowing the interior to be illuminated. This gave us an accurate idea of the stage of embryo development; we were looking to collect eggs which were at least 28 days old, so that they would have the best chance to survive the vibration and variable incubation parameters of the journey back. At the end of the first day of collecting at St Andrew's Bay, only 49 eggs were considered sufficiently developed for the embryos to survive the long journey back to the zoological parks. Mr Lurcock told us that local weather conditions had been severe up until three weeks earlier, and we speculated that for this reason most of the eggs we collected had been laid during the last three weeks, after the harsh weather came to an end. Climatic conditions in South Georgia can be highly variable around different areas of the island, so we decided that the best course of action was to move to a different location for the second day. The eggs that we considered to be too young would then be taken ashore and changed for eggs from the new location, which would hopefully be more advanced in their embryo development. We therefore sailed during the night to our next location.

King penguin colony at Royal Bay, South Georgia. Note the many well-developed chicks, now moved to the outer edge of the breeding area. (Photo: Roger Sweeney)

On the morning of 23 March we were harboured offshore from Royal Bay, which would be our second point of collection. We hoped that we would find many more birds here which had begun to lay a few weeks earlier than at St Andrew's Bay. Once again the shoreline was dominated by king penguins, an estimated 30,000 birds on this beach. A few gentoos and chin-straps were also present, as were the skuas and snowy sheathbills which seem to be always found in the area of large king penguin colonies. A few juvenile fur seals were also on the beach, and just a single large female elephant seal. It had now become apparent to us that, to collect eggs that had been incubated for at least four weeks, we would have to enter deeper into the centre of the breeding area of the colony. It seems that breeding birds congregate in certain areas of the beach. The first birds to arrive, who will produce their eggs first, are at the centre of the group which forms, while newer arrivals join the outside. As the earlier chicks grow past a certain size, their parents begin to move them to the outside of the breeding area, as the chicks require a greater amount of food. This allows the outer females to move inwards towards the centre of the colony during the latter part of their incubation period, so as to be in the safest position when their chicks hatch.

The second day of egg collection went well. Each time a new egg was collected, we quickly took the opportunity to place one of the young eggs from the previous day underneath a female whose own egg was removed. In nearly all cases this worked well. Again, it should be remembered that practically all these eggs and any resulting offspring were unlikely to survive the winter, because they had been laid so late in the year. But we wanted to follow good standards of practice, so great care was taken to ensure that the unwanted eggs were replaced with females who were having their own eggs collected. By the end of this second day, we had in all 217 eggs which were considered suitable to be transferred to the two parks. For the first time we could relax in the knowledge that the primary objective of our trip had been achieved. A 24-hour watch was maintained on the two incubators that carried the eggs, and we set sail once again to Grytviken to return Pat Lurcock to his post.

On the morning of 24 March we were ahead of schedule, so we had time to make two stops as we sailed up the coast. The first, at an old whaling station town, Stromness, proved to be an interesting experience. The buildings, now in disrepair and falling down, had in many cases been taken over as shelter for large elephant seals and fur seals. Much of the old equipment used by the whalers was still there, although rusted, and the beach area contained many bones and rusted boat pieces, a silent monument to the events that had taken place there during past decades. The stony beach passed back inland into grassland, and a number of small groups of gentoo penguins made their way along pathways of several hundred metres from their inland colony to the sea.

Wandering albatross with chicks in nest, Prion Island. (Photo: Roger Sweeney)

In the afternoon we stopped at Prion Island, which provided us with some of the most memorable sights on the trip. We landed and climbed upwards through tussock grass slopes. At the top of the island we were treated to the sight of a number of nesting pairs of wandering albatross, two of which had chicks present in the nest. A number of newly-fledged albatrosses also wandered the island, still in immature plumage, and there were also several large giant petrel chicks; these are well known for their projectile-vomiting, a natural defence which ensures that predators – and visiting birdwatchers – always allow the nests of this species plenty of room so that the chicks do not feel molested. On a cliff ledge I was able to watch and photograph a pair of light-mantled sooty albatross which were nesting. I was also able to watch and photograph a small flock of eleven South Georgia pintail (Anas g. georgica) – perhaps the rarest bird species we had seen on the trip – on a pool hidden in tussock grassland. But the species with which I spent most time on Prion Island was a colony of gentoo penguins. I had previously seen small groups in other locations, but this was the first opportunity to watch them within their colony. The first thing which surprised me was how far up the slope of the island this was, several hundred metres and steeply uphill from the beach. I spent nearly an hour in the middle of this colony, as the birds, even though they had clearly completed their annual breeding cycle, were energetically engaged in nest-building activity. In typical fashion for such densely-populated colonies, most of the material being used for nest furnishing was stolen from an adjacent nest rather than being brought from outside the colony. This made the area full of life, as the birds continually squabbled over nest ownership and went in search of new material, while trying not to venture too far from their own unprotected nests.

South Georgia pintail, a rare and seldom-photographed subspecies. (Photo: Roger Sweeney)

On the morning of 24 March we were back out in the open sea. The voyage back was slightly shorter, as we were heading for Port Stanley, the principal port of the Falkland Islands. The species of bird and marine mammal seen were similar to those recorded on our outward voyage, perhaps the most impressive sight being the pods of up to 40 hour-glass dolphins which joined the bow of the ship on two occasions on the mornings of 25 and 26 March. No new species were seen until we reached the Falklands late in the afternoon of 27 March. The approach into Port Stanley brought sightings of both fin and minke whales, which we had seen previously close to South Georgia. In addition we had our first sighting of Peele's dolphins (Lagenorhynchus australis), which accompanied the bow of the ship for just under an hour. New bird species were Falkland Island flightless steamer duck (Tachyeres brachypterus), Falkland Island kelp goose (Chloephaga hybrida malvinarum) and greater Magellan goose (Chloephaga picta leucoptera). Also seen were Magellanic penguins, which breeds on the Falkland Islands, our first sighting of them since the day we sailed from Ushuaia. We slept overnight on the ship, and then transferred ashore for the road journey to Mount Pleasant airport. From here we flew to Punta Arenas in southern Chile, then by internal flight up to Santiago de Chile. At this stage we went in separate directions. The team from Moody Gardens, together with Frank Towhey, were to fly to Florida and then on to Texas. I was travelling with Scott Drieschmann and Frank Todd to Madrid, then on to Tenerife. The flight from Santiago de Chile to Madrid was the longest leg; the incubator was powered by battery, but with 117 large, well-developed eggs inside an insulated container the heater barely needed to working at all, as the eggs were generating enough heat by themselves for long periods of time. Throughout the flight, the incubators' interior temperature was continually monitored by Scott Drieschmann and myself. Of particular concern were the periods of take-off and landing, when the change in cabin air pressure would have a direct effect on the air temperature inside the incubators.

On our eventual arrival in Tenerife's north airport, we were driven quickly to Loro Parque, where the quarantine nursery was prepared and waiting. The assistant curator, Mike Downman, was waiting and the eggs were transferred into two specially-built incubators. The first egg was in the process of hatching as we landed in Tenerife, and hatched soon after arrival in the quarantine nursery; the chick was named Santiago, and was the first of over 70 birds who were hatched and reared from the eggs we had collected. This group of king penguins will be the first inhabitants of the new penguin exhibit being built at Loro Parque. This enclosure will have an indoor refrigerated area of more than 2,000 square metres and will feature both underwater and above-water viewing of the birds, who will enjoy a natural floor surface of snow and ice, thanks to the below-freezing temperatures that will be maintained inside the building.

Roger G. Sweeney was until recently Curator of Birds at Loro Parque, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain. He may now be contacted at: Dymocks Mill Cottage, Oldcastle, Malpas, Cheshire SY14 7NE, U.K.



BREEDING THE HAWK-HEADED PARROT: AN OVERVIEW

BY MAARTEN DE RUITER

The hawk-headed (or red-fan) parrot (Deroptyus accipitrinus) is a very unusual-looking parrot which is quite rare in captivity. In the wild it is said not to be threatened at present; but to avoid more wild-caught birds being brought into captivity, serious breeding attempts should be made by every collection keeping these birds.

Although the species already has a long avicultural history, the first successful breeding was achieved as late as 1965 at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago. After this first success, further breedings were reported (England, 1972; Germany, 1974; Netherlands, 1981; Austria, 1996), but even today they are still rare.

To gain a better insight into the requirements for breeding, I checked the published material available to me (which includes a number of magazines with a limited distribution), of which I will give a summary here. In most collections, the main food is still dry seeds; but because the hawk-headed parrot is a bird of the tropical rainforest, fruit and soaked or sprouted seeds should be the main food given. Some of the collections reviewed also offered their birds some animal-derived components (dried shrimps, dry dog pellets), and in some cases these were taken, in others not.

As can be seen in Table 2, the size of the aviary seems to have no influence on breeding in this species. If you have a good pair, they will breed even in very small cages. For nestboxes, the rule seems to be, the deeper, the better. In one case (T. Cramer) no breeding occurred with a nestbox 70 cm deep, but after this box was replaced by another which was 1.8 m deep, the birds nested succesfully.

Table 1. Breeding information.

Collection Clutch size Incubation Nesting/weaning time

Walsrode Birdpark always 2 c. 26 105 days

Jurong Birdpark 1, 2, and 3 26–28 80–120 days

National Aquarium,

Baltimore always 3 16 (?) 62 days

Palmitos Park 2, 3, and 4 26–28 65–69 days

J. Eckstein 2 no data 67 days

R. Riedl 3 and 4 28 67 days

F. Faszl 3 28 no data

T. Cramer 3 31 78 days

Table 2. Aviary measurements.

Collection Indoors Outdoors

length depth height length depth height

Walsrode 3 m 2.2 m 2.1 m – – –

Jurong – – – 3 m 1.5 m 2.3 m

Baltimore Tropical rainforest exhibit (total 14,570 cubic metres)

Palmitos Park 2.4 m 1.2 m 2.1 m – – –

J. Eckstein 1.7 m 1 m 2 m 3 m 2 m 2 m

R. Riedl 1 m 1 m 0.8 m – – –

F. Faszl 3 m 1 m 2.5 m 3m 1 m 2.5 m

Table 3. Nestbox measurements.

Collection Area Height Entrance-hole

Walsrode 30 cm diameter 80 cm 10 cm diameter

Jurong 30.5 ´ 30.5 cm 76 cm 10 cm diameter

Baltimore 33 ´ 28 cm 65 cm no information

Palmitos Park 25 ´ 20 cm 47 cm no information

J. Eckstein 25 cm diameter 70 cm 9 cm diameter

R. Riedl 30 ´ 30 cm 70 cm no information

T. Cramer no information 180 cm no information

Sources

Cramer, T. (1982): Kweken met de kraagparkiet. Onze Vogels 43 (3): 112–113.

Eckstein, J. (1994): Haltung und Zucht des Fächerpapageis. Papageien 7 (8): 231–232.

Faszl, F. (1997): Meine Erstzucht des Fächerpapageis. Aktuelles aus der Vogelwelt 11 (5): 152–154.

Krussman, R.J. (1991): A review of the 1990 avian breeding successes of a mixed species rain forest exhibit. Avicultural Magazine 97 (1): 25–34.

Low, R. (1990) Aufzucht von Fächerpapageien im Palmitos Park. Gefiederte Welt 114 (3): 70–72.

Low, R. (1996): Die Zucht von Fächerpapageien aus Guyana und Brasilien. Gefiederte Welt 120 (4): 114–117.

Riedl, R. (1995): Seltener Erfolg beim Dunkelköpfigen Fächerpapagei. Aktuelles aus der Vogelwelt 9 (3): 80–82.

Robiller, F., Masloff, I., and Neumann, N. (1989): Zuchterfolg mit den Fächerpapagei. Gefiederte Welt 113 (9): 262–264.

Santos, I.J. (1991): Breeding and handraising hawk-headed parrots. AFA Watchbird 18 (4): 8–12.

Maarten de Ruiter, Pr. Beatrixstraat 9, 4793 CV Fijnaart, The Netherlands.



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Sir,

Ray Cimino certainly does not need me or anyone else to fight his battles for him – he is more than capable of defending his actions and his position – but I feel I must respond to Mary Talbot-Rosevear's recent Guest Editorial (I.Z.N. 45:6, p. 334), written in response to Mr Cimino's television programme and I.Z.N. article dealing with the issue of disposal of surplus stock.

Whilst it is right and proper that Ms Talbot-Rosevear should seek to defend the actions of the zoos which were `exposed' by Cimino's investigation, her arguments smack of the very worst type of spin-doctoring, and her statistical manipulation defies logic: if `only two' collections actually sold animals to the bogus animal-dealing company, this in no way contradicts the fact that a total of 30 Federation collections were willing to do so. And if the methods used to `ensnare' the zoos were indeed `underhand', this does not in any way detract from the fact that, even if they did not break any laws, two zoos acted in a rather ill-advised manner and thus did themselves and the wider zoo community no favours at all.

Rather than attempting to explain away the actions of the zoos involved, suggesting in the process that there is really nothing wrong with selling a puma to a Land-Rover-driving Irishman about whom nothing at all is known, the Zoo Federation and its director might, perhaps, be better off admitting that mistakes have been made, and determining to do better in the future. Only in this way can the zoo world really ensure that it `improves the quality of life for animals', as Ms Talbot-Rosevear demands.

Yours faithfully,

John Tuson,

c/o VSO Office,

P.O. Box 6297,

Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania.

Dear Sir,

In her recent guest editorial (I.Z.N. 45:6, p. 334), Mary Talbot-Rosevear seriously misrepresents what I wrote in my article `Aspects of the disposal of surplus stock from British zoos' (I.Z.N. 45:3, pp. 150–152), in what can only be described as a damage-limitation exercise on behalf of the Zoo Federation. For the sake of brevity I will confine my response to just two factually incorrect statements in her submission.

Firstly, she wilfully misquotes from my article by omitting the key qualifying word italicised in the full sentence repeated here; `Of the 39 [zoos] which were contacted, 30 appeared willing to deal with the company.' Arising from this misquote, she concludes that `Ray Cimino's findings are incorrect.' As Ms Talbot-Rosevear was not present when these zoos were contacted, and has not at any time asked the programme makers or myself for access to the recordings of the calls made, nor to the video and audio recordings of visits to seven of these zoos, nor to any summary of any of these matters, she is in no position to declare my published findings incorrect.

Of these 39 zoos, some had no surplus stock available, but indicated potential willingness to deal with the bogus company if stock became available at a later date. In a good many cases where surplus stock was available, discussions about purchasing such surplus were taken to various levels of advancement, including numerous verbal agreements to sell. Had time, financial and logistical budgets allowed, I am certain that many of these could have been brought to a sale conclusion. Some of the factors which were considered in deciding which avenues to pursue were the visual appeal of the species, the availability of suitable accommodation after purchase, as well as the budgets mentioned above.

One would have thought that if Ms Talbot-Rosevear was seriously concerned about the allegations levelled, she would have requested the names and details of the zoos in question. Instead she appears to have exerted more effort in trying to prevent the programme being broadcast, including the use of a private detective to investigate this writer. This was acknowledged in a statement by the Zoo Federation on 23 April 1998, which concluded that `These lines of investigation did not provide sufficiently significant evidence, which could be used in order to seek an injunction.'

On 7 October 1998, at a hearing of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, Mr Mike Reynolds read from the minutes of a recent Zoo Federation meeting on the matter, quoting a zoo director who complained that his practice of breeding quantities of African grey parrots for sale into the pet trade (ultimate destination therefore unknown) would be jeopardised if he had to adhere to existing Federation guidelines on the disposal of surplus stock. One year on from the broadcast of that programme, this seems to be the level of internal debate among Federation members. I rest my case.

Yours faithfully,

Ray Cimino,

13 Hyacinth Street,

North Strand,

Dublin 3,

Ireland.

Information wanted

I am interested in obtaining any information from zoos that have free-ranging tamarins. I specifically need information on the following:

1. How did you decide which tamarins would be free-ranging and how many were allowed to be free-ranging?

2. Location – in what part of the zoo are the tamarins free-ranging? Is there a park, field or busy intersection nearby this site?

3. Housing – do they need special nestboxes to protect them from the elements?

4. Food – what kind of feeders are provided for them? Where and how do you feed them?

5. Can they easily be caught up at any time?

6. How do you keep track of them and when do you feel it necessary to catch them up?

7. What problems, if any, have you encountered so far?

8. What advice can you give to any zoo interested in having free-ranging tamarins?

Please send information to: Maria Browning, San Antonio Zoo, Children's Zoo Department, 3903 N. St Mary's Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212, U.S.A.



BOOK REVIEW

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE DOUCS AND SNUB-NOSED MONKEYS edited by Nina G. Jablonski (Recent Advances in Human Biology, Vol. 4). World Scientific, Singapore, 1998. xix + 382 pp., illus., hardback. ISBN 981–02–3131-8. £44.00.

The Chinese and Indochinese odd-nosed langurs, the genera Rhinopithecus and Pygathrix, include the largest, rarest and most attractive – well, interesting-looking – of all monkeys. According to the International Zoo Yearbook (Volume 35), only six zoos world-wide have douc langurs (Pygathrix nemaeus), and only two have snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana – the golden species). The second figure is certainly not correct: it refers only to two Japanese collections, whereas I myself have seen R. roxellana and R. bieti (the black species) in altogether six zoos in China. But the four species of snub-nosed monkeys and one douc species are certainly very rare – unfortunately so in the wild, and very much so in zoos. Although it is no longer considered zoo-politically correct for a zoo director to admit that he or she is keen to show animals few others can, surely many deep in their hearts would be more than happy to have one of the odd-nosed monkeys. The Chinese snub-nosed monkeys should be especially popular, not only because of their looks and size, but also because of their hardiness in cold weather, which many of the better zoos enjoy for many months of the year. One of the Chinese names for R. bieti is, not without reason, Xuehou – `snow monkey'. For a while, golden snub-nosed monkeys joined giant pandas in serving as China's zoological ambassadors. San Diego Zoo offered a blank cheque and made quite a fuss of the monkeys loaned to them in 1984 for five months, whereas Europeans had to go to Dublin Zoo if they wanted to see any. Airfares being what they are today, it would probably be almost as cheap to fly from, say, London to San Diego as it would to fly to Dublin. San Diego Zoo was able to keep their doucs at least, and Basel and Cologne too have a good record with zoo-bred Kleideraffen, `clothed monkeys', to use the local vernacular.

In the unlikely event that your local zoo will get snub-nosed or douc colobines, The Natural History of the Doucs and Snub-nosed Monkeys is the book for your zoo library. Aside from the fact that it is the first and only book on the subject in a European language anyway, it is a fine and comprehensive introduction to the two genera. Going back to a conference on Bali in August 1994, it includes the proceedings of that meeting. The subject on Bali was Rhinopithecus only, however, and to give the book more meat – if not necessarily more relevance to the series (on human biology) of which it is a volume – contributions on doucs were solicited later. It has the small disadvantages of almost all published proceedings: a certain arbitrariness of chapter topics, overlapping or repetition of information spread over two or more chapters, and gaps that no speaker or writer could be found to fill. Zoo biologists, for example, should find the chapter on black snub-nosed monkeys in captivity especially interesting, but R. bieti is one of the least-likely species any zoo outside China will ever keep in the foreseeable future. Chapters on the more common golden snub-nosed monkeys and doucs in captivity would have been welcome additions. But the editor, a primatologist at the California Academy of Sciences (that is, the San Francisco Museum of Natural History), knows what's missing more than anyone, surely, and that is fortunately very little. She has put together a mass of information on the two genera's evolution and systematics, anatomy, ecology, behaviour and conservation (to name the `Parts' into which the book is divided). Over half the contributors are Chinese primatologists; two are from Vietnam, one each from Australia and Thailand, and the rest U.S. Americans. The volume is dedicated to Shi Liming, the late director of the Academia Sinica's Kunming Institute of Zoology. To some extent, the book is meant to publicise Chinese primatology in a Western world not very much aware of what's going on in China. That purpose, too, it serves well. World Scientific as publishers have done their part in producing a nicely bound and printed book, with excellently reproduced illustrations, including colour photographs. Considering what academic books can cost nowadays, and especially when one reflects on how small a market a book on East Asian colobines must have, the publishers' recommended price is more than fair.

Herman Reichenbach



MISCELLANY

Diseases and extinction. . .

A new fungal disease has been shown to be the cause of death in amphibians at pristine rainforest sites in both Australia and Central America. Results of an international collaboration (Berger, L., et al.: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 1998, 95, 9031–9036) suggest that the fungus, found in the keratinized cells of the skin of adult amphibians, appears to be the same pathogen on both continents. The disease was shown to cause mortality in an experimental group of amphibians, probably by interfering with supplementary water uptake or respiration through the skin. It was identified as the cause of death of frogs and toads belonging to nine genera, including Taudactylus acutirostris, an Australian species, which may now be extinct.

A protozoan disease of the digestive gland is thought to have been responsible for the extinction of Partula turgida, the last individual of which died at London Zoo on 1 January 1996 (Cunningham, A.A., and Daszak, P., in Conservation Biology, October 1998). The disease is caused by a microsporidian parasite of the genus Steinhausia, and was identified as the cause of death in the last five individuals of the species to die. Numerous field surveys have failed to find extant populations of this species in the wild (the South Pacific island of Raiatea). Currently over ten species of Partula snail occur only in captivity, and it is unknown whether the parasite is capable of infecting these populations.

Both cases suggest that a new pathogen introduced to a previously unexposed and fragmented population (factors augmented by a shrinking habitat) can lead to decimation from which the species cannot recover. In the modern world, with the movement of humans into once pristine habitats and the introduction of alien parasites (a form of `pathogen pollution'), local outbreaks of disease can become epidemic or even pandemic, leading to local or perhaps global extinction.

Abridged from Peter Daszak and Andrew A. Cunningham in Oryx Vol. 32, No. 4 (October 1998)

. . . and conserving parasites

Sometimes, conserving a species involves destroying its parasites. For example, when the last remaining 18 black-footed ferrets were brought into captivity for captive breeding and reintroduction, any host-specific parasites may have been inadvertently destroyed because of the treatment the ferrets were given to minimize the risk of disease. But many of the arguments advanced for conserving biodiversity and saving individual species also apply to species of parasites. For example, the medical and research uses of parasites may directly serve humans. In addition, parasite community ecology suggests that the loss of one parasite species can deter competitive interactions among remaining parasitic species, possibly to the detriment of the host. Maintaining populations of host-specific parasites may be important for the continued health or survival of the host population.

M.E. Gompper and E.S. Williams, Conservation Biology 12 (3), 730–732 (reported in Oryx Vol. 32, No. 4)



INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS

Boras Zoo, Sweden

A pair of southern white rhinoceroses have spent 34 summers in the zoo's large four-acre (1.6 ha) savannah together with other African species, such as ostrich, zebra, Cape buffalo, eland, giraffe, blesbok and guineafowl. African elephants also shared the exhibit until relatively recently. We wanted the elephants to return to the savannah, requiring that a new place be found for our current pair of rhinos and for a planned larger group. The cheetahs also needed new facilities, so that the zoo could house more individuals of this species. These needs resulted in a new 7,000 m2 mixed exhibit for rhinoceroses and cheetahs. The same combination of species has been kept in a similar enclosure at Lion Country Safari Park, Florida, U.S.A., for some 20 years. Big boulders arranged in a row across one part of the enclosure provide the cheetahs with a retreat if necessary – they can easily cross or walk between the stones, but the rhinos cannot. This experiment has been successful. The rhinos do not seem to be concerned by the presence of the cheetahs, while the cheetahs move confidently around in the rhinoceros area and may even rest there without being bothered.

Abridged from Stefan Jonsson in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

Bristol Zoo, U.K.

Four baby West African dwarf crocodiles (Osteolaemus tetraspis) have hatched out at the zoo. This is the second time that the parents have incubated their own eggs, a very rare event in European zoos. After they mated, the adults made a nest out of bark chips, bits of plants and stones. The mother then laid her eggs in a chamber in the middle, covered them over and guarded the nest for three months. She tended it very carefully, removing or adding nest material every day to ensure that the eggs incubated at the right temperature. When the baby crocodiles were ready to hatch they started making pipping noises from inside the eggs. At this sign the mother opened the nest and took the eggs one at a time to the shallow water to release the baby crocodiles.

As in the wild, the mother has nothing more to do with the youngsters once they are hatched, because they are fully capable of feeding and fending for themselves. The four babies are feeding enthusiastically on crickets, fish and mice, and they will soon be on show to the public in the Reptile House.

In the wild these crocodiles have become threatened by habitat destruction and hunting. This is the only crocodilian species on a managed conservation breeding programme in the U.K.

Bristol Zoo press release

Budapest Zoo, Hungary

The zoo has made another step on the path to its renewal in the renovation of the pheasantry. This is one of the zoo's many listed buildings, and dates from 1912. Its high towers are reminiscent of Transylvanian vernacular church architecture, and its timbering and fine woodcarving evoke a unique atmosphere. The exhibition area was previously divided into small, outdated compartments, mainly displaying different pheasant species. The wooden construction had decayed over time, requiring a complete renovation. It was a most exciting challenge to transform and enlarge the enclosures while preserving the monumental character of the historic building as much as possible.

The holding facilities were considerably enlarged from 307 m2 to 498 m2. The small compartments were united into one big walk-through aviary, giving visitors the opportunity to observe different species including glossy ibis, Eurasian spoonbill, cattle egret, common gallinule, European coot, pied avocet and red-crested pochard. The shorter wing of the building was also transformed into a mixed-species exhibit housing red squirrels, hedgehogs, terrapins and various typical native bird species. The service area includes a hatchery in which a nice group of red-breasted geese were the first inhabitants. The new back part of the building, with its heat-insulating glass roof, provides winter quarters for the exhibited birds. A memorial lantern in front of the pheasantry commemorates the beautiful historic buildings of the zoo that were either destroyed during World War II or neglected in communist times.

Adapted from Melinda Terényi in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

Clères Zoological Park, France

On 30 June and 3 July 1998, two Blyth's tragopans hatched at the zoo after artificial insemination. The mother hatched in 1994 in England and has been housed at Clères since 1995. She was first paired with a male, who unfortunately has badly crooked toes, at the end of 1996. Three two-egg clutches laid in 1997 were infertile, despite the male displaying well, so prior to the 1998 breeding season this male was exchanged for a younger one, born in 1996 in a German private aviary. The female laid three clutches of two eggs during the 1998 breeding season. The laying interval between two eggs was three days, and the clutches were about three weeks apart (18 and 24 days). The first egg was laid on 13 April and the last one on 2 June.

After the first clutch, laid in April, proved to be infertile, an examination of the male's reproductive organs revealed his immaturity. Therefore, it was decided to try to inseminate the female with semen collected from the older, isolated male, with the agreement of Han Assink, the international studbook keeper for this species. We did not succeed in everting the cloaca of the female between the first and second clutches, so insemination was unsuccessful and the second clutch was infertile. But after that we succeeded twice in everting the cloaca, and insemination was carried out 11 days and four days before the first egg was laid, or 14 and seven days before the second one.

Both eggs were fertile and two viable chicks hatched from them. The eggs were laid on 30 May (weight 70.6 g) and 2 June (weight 70.3 g). They were placed in an incubator one hour after having been collected in the aviary. The mean incubation temperature was 37.4° C and mean relative humidity was 37%. The incubation period was 31 days, and the eggs lost 11% and 16% of their weight respectively during incubation. Hand-rearing of the chicks was easy, and they are eight weeks old today (1 September).

Alain Hennache in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

Jacksonville Zoo, Florida, U.S.A.

The zoo has received three (1.2) jaguars who were wild-born in the Llanos of Venezuela. They are on loan from Fundación Nacional de Parques Zoológicos y Acuarios (FUNPZA), the Venezuelan zoo association, which was instrumental in obtaining the cats. The five-year-old male was held at a livestock association in Valencia. The nine-year-old female came from the `Las Delicias' Zoo, Maracay, and the six-year-old female had been at the Caricuao Zoo in Caracas. The arrival of these jaguars increases the entirely traceable jaguar stock in North America by 300%. Jacksonville Zoo is working with FUNPZA to improve the state of the jaguar in Venezuela; later this year, Israel Canizales, DVM, FUNPZA's chief veterinarian, will be participating in cross-training with the zoo's veterinary staff.

A. Rost in AZA Communiqué (November 1998)

Kus Cenneti (Bird Paradise), Bayramoglu, Turkey

This year the park celebrated its first successful hatching and rearing of a Turkish waldrapp (Geronticus eremita). The Turkish form of this species is extremely rare, unlike the Moroccan form, which is relatively common in European zoos and the subject of a very successful EEP programme. The wild population of the eastern form went extinct in 1989, and today only 55 birds are left at a breeding station in Birecik in eastern Turkey, near the Syrian border. In order to spread the risk, a number of birds from this group were made available to three other Turkish institutions over the past few years, namely Izmir Zoo, Ankara Zoo and Bayramoglu Kus Cenneti, the last being the only EAZA member of the three. Kus Cenneti originally received 4.2 birds in 1996. An additional adult female was obtained from Ankara Zoo in 1997. Breeding occurred for the first time in 1998 and one chick was hatched on 12 June. It is hoped that the Turkish captive-breeding programme will lead to an increase in the number of birds, and that efforts to reintroduce birds and restore the lost waldrapp habitat in Turkey and a number of neighbouring countries will be successful in the future.

Aydan Tekin in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

Monrovia Zoo and Animal Orphanage, Liberia, West Africa

The director of the Monrovia Zoo and Animal Orphanage is Charles Steiner. The zoo he originally founded and operated was mostly destroyed after the Liberian civil war reached it in late 1990. All the zoo's animals were lost, and in their absence tropical vegetation overgrew what remained of the exhibits that previously housed leopards, chimpanzees, pygmy hippos and various duiker species, including Jentink's, zebra and yellow-backed duikers. This zoo once exhibited the most diverse collection of duikers in the world, and played an important role in conservation education in Liberia.

Monrovia Zoo is now on the slow road to recovery, and the country's only wildlife conservation group, the Society for the Conservation of Nature in Liberia (SCNL), has erected an education building and is working with other conservation groups to re-establish the zoo. More information may be obtained by contacting Charles Steiner at Melchtal Strasse 18, 3014 Bern, Switzerland.

Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 10 (October 1998)

Prague Zoo, Czech Republic

The world's first zoo-bred caiman lizard (Dracaena guianensis) hatched here on 20 June 1998. The female laid four eggs on 10 January 1998, two of which were infertile while the young in the third egg died during incubation. The eggs were incubated in a closed jar with a litre of vermiculite and 75 ml of water at 30° C. A healthy young lizard hatched from the fourth egg after an incubation period of 161 days. The hatchling weighed 43 g and was 273.3 mm long. It did not eat in the first three weeks after hatching, but seemed to be in very good condition, and started to eat thereafter. Prague Zoo keeps 2.1 caiman lizards, which were imported from the wild in 1995, together in one enclosure.

Tomás Kapic in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

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

A banteng calf, born at the zoo on 11 September, is the first of its species ever to be reproduced by means of artificial insemination. St Louis Zoo has studied wild cattle for more than 20 years and worked on artificial insemination of banteng for the past several years. In 1990, with a $25,000 grant from the Institute of Museum Services, the zoo began to study the induction of banteng ovulation, prolonging the fertile life of fresh semen, effective freezing and thawing of semen, refining the techniques of artificial insemination and investigating possible seasonal changes in semen.

The calf is the offspring of semen produced by Herschel, a banteng bull who died of old age infirmities in May 1997. Because Herschel was born in Rotterdam Zoo in 1979 and is not closely related to most banteng in North America, he is genetically important to the future captive population. He was brought to St Louis in 1982 and sired seven offspring by natural means. His semen was collected and frozen prior to his death. `Artificial insemination is an important way to reproduce endangered species,' says Cheryl Asa, director of research at St Louis. `It is less expensive and safer for the animals if we can ship frozen semen to other zoos, rather than the bull or cow itself.'

St Louis Zoo's McGwire, the first banteng calf born by artificial insemination. (Photo: Chuck Dresner)

The calf's mother came to St Louis in 1996 from San Diego Wild Animal Park, where she was born in 1991. She had two natural births in San Diego and one in St Louis, and was artificially inseminated in mid-November last year. The calf weighed 60 pounds (27 kg) at birth, a record for the zoo; new-born banteng calves average about 45–50 pounds (20–23 kg).

The walk-through Lorikeet Aviary in St Louis's new Emerson Electric Children's Zoo is currently home to a flock of more than 60 lories and lorikeets. Many of them are rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus), the most widely distributed species of these parrots in the wild. More than 22 different races are spread across their native territory – Indonesia, New Guinea, Australia and western Pacific islands. We have five subspecies of rainbow lorikeet on display, along with several other species including the endangered blue-streaked lory (Eos reticulata).

Unlike other parrots that eat a variety of hard foods such as seeds, lories in the wild consume a diet composed largely of nectar and pollen from flowers, as well as parts of the flowers themselves. Lories lack the muscular gizzard which enables other parrots to crush harder food items. Their tongues are specialized for this diet, and are tipped with a `brush' with which to lap nectar and collect pollen. When the birds are not feeding, the brush is sheathed, but opens during feeding to capture pollen. Here, the birds are fed nectar by visitors all day, and receive a fruit and vegetable mixture (diced carrots, beet, corn, blueberries, apples and bananas) at night. Zoo visitors who purchase cups of nectar with which to feed the lories can closely observe this unusual tongue in action. Our Children's Zoo lories have learned to approach people for food, but they are essentially untamed and don't like to be touched or handled. Still, entering the Aviary is a memorable experience for visitors.

Behaviorally, lories are gregarious creatures, squabbling noisily among themselves. To help dissipate their energies in the Aviary, we provide a variety of distractions for them: bamboo from which they strip leaves; cardboard and newsprint to shred; and their favorite toys, toothbrushes with bristles on which they chew. In the wild, lories usually nest in holes in trees; but we do not expect our birds to breed, as we have not provided them with nest sites. Breeding pairs are exceptionally aggressive, behavior that could be problematic in a walk-through exhibit. In addition, our collection is of young birds, and it can take several years for some species to reach maturity.

St Louis Zoo press release (banteng); Sara Lenoe in Zudus Vol. 12, No. 4 (lories)

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

The woodland savannas of western, central and eastern Africa are home to the world's largest species of antelope, the Lord Derby's, or giant, eland (Taurotragus derbianus). These huge antelope are named in honor of the 13th Earl of Derby, and were first brought to the attention of Europeans in the mid-19th century by Thomas Whitfield, a collector employed by the earl to obtain specimens for his private menagerie at Knowsley Hall, near Liverpool, England. The earl, a notable naturalist, was president of the Zoological Society of London from 1831 until his death in 1851, and his animal collection was considered to be among the most important in Europe, housing at one time or another some 619 species of birds and 191 of mammals. There is, however, no evidence that he ever had giant elands living at Knowsley Hall.

Two subspecies of the giant eland are recognized, with ranges separated by the Niger River – the western (T. d. derbianus) and the eastern (T. d. gigas). It is the eastern subspecies that can be seen on Horn and Hoof Mesa at San Diego Zoo. The zoo's first giant elands, two males, arrived in August 1991, and the herd today numbers five (1.4). At the Wild Animal Park, there are currently 4.2 in residence, with a breeding pair moving into Heart of Africa in August 1998. As part of a collaborative giant eland program, the Society's original animals were offspring of founders imported by Cincinnati Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo and the International Animal Exchange. This program has since grown into a consortium that also includes San Diego and White Oak Conservation Center, Florida.

Lord Derby's elands are true giants. The largest bulls are ten feet (3 m) in overall length, stand six feet (1.8 m) at the shoulder, and weigh as much as 2,000 pounds (900 kg); cows are almost eight feet (2.4 m) in length, five feet (1.5 m) at the shoulder, and may weigh 1,100 pounds (500 kg). Both sexes possess massive, impressive horns that are more widely splayed and more strongly keeled than those of the common eland. In large bulls, the horns may measure 34 inches (86 cm) in length. The animals are highly selective in their habitat requirements and, as a result, populations tend to be localized and isolated from one another. Researchers have found that they are difficult to observe, as they are timid and nocturnal. During the night, they often travel considerable distances in search of forage, and by day they usually rest in the shade of trees. They are browsers, primarily consuming the leaves of a few select leguminous trees, and so are much more dependent on woodlands than are common elands. Although they are not territorial, herds occupy home ranges as large as 875 to 950 square miles (225,000–245,000 ha). A gregarious species, they usually live in herds of ten to 20 individuals, although groups of up to 60 have often been recorded. It appears that their social structure is fluid and open. Bulls are often solitary or found in bachelor groups; their contact with cows ranges from a few hours' to several weeks' duration. They are not aggressive, even during the breeding season, and seem to observe the principle of `rank by age and size'; among bulls, the girth of the neck, shoulders, dewlap and facial brush enlarge continuously throughout their lives. Despite their great size and bulk, Lord Derby's elands are capable of executing tremendous leaps and can easily clear a five-foot-tall (1.5 m) obstacle.

The species seems to be particularly susceptible to the viral disease rinderpest, which causes severe inflammation of the mucous membranes, the intestines and the upper respiratory tract. The outbreak of rinderpest that swept through their range in 1983 is believed to have reduced their numbers by as much as 60% or more. Throughout their range, they are also threatened by drought, deforestation and illegal hunting for meat. The western subspecies is endangered, with its largest population surviving in Senegal; it has been eliminated in much of its former range and cannot be considered secure. There are hopes of reintroducing it into Comoe National Park, Ivory Coast, which contains ideal savanna woodland habitat and is well protected against poachers. Populations of the eastern giant eland are somewhat more secure, and in some areas their numbers seem to be increasing – oddly enough, they are benefiting from the expansion of their favored woodland habitat, which has been brought about by a reduction in the numbers of elephants in this range. It is hoped that conservation measures, aided by captive-breeding programs such as those at San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park, will allow these magnificent animals to continue their wide-ranging life-style in Africa.

Abridged from Steven Joines in Zoonooz Vol. 71, No. 10 (October 1998)

This giant eland bull is sharing his enclosure with visiting white egrets in the East Africa exhibit in San Diego Wild Animal Park.

Schönbrunn Zoo, Vienna, Austria

The zoo's project `Forest Nature Trail' is designed to provide information about forests at the junction between ecology and economy. It supplies answers to many questions that come to mind during a walk in the woods, and provides an opportunity for an educational outdoor excursion right in the heart of Vienna. The project encompasses a wide range of interesting topics that are supplemented by mechanically simple, interactive elements. Beyond presenting information in poster form, this approach includes a `bioacusticum' (listen to the sounds of different woodpeckers), a `dendrophone' (how do different types of wood resonate?), a mushroom scenarium (poisonous/edible fungi), and blocks cut from different tree species. The goal is to engage all the visitor's five senses.

Sixteen stations dealing with the following subjects have currently been installed: (1) Overview map of nature trail and sponsor information; (2) Life in forest soil; (3) Soil profile; (4) Dendrophone; (5) Mushroom scenarium; (6) Photosynthesis – the cornerstone of all life; (7) Key functions of the forest and material cycles in the forest; (8) Bustling life in mature timber and dead wood; (9) Network of mound-building forest ants; (10) Honeybees and beekeeping; (11) Bioacusticum; (12) Artificial nests for animals; (13) Hunting over the centuries; (14) Wood blocks from different tree species; (15) Protective function of forests; (16) The levels within a forest.

Splitting the project into various subsections not only provides detailed information on each topic, but also provides valuable suggestions for things to keep an eye out for during future visits to the forest. The broad range of topics allows biological interdependencies and laws that underlie the forest ecosystem to be demonstrated, with special reference to the situation in Schönbrunn Zoo in the middle of a major city. This nature trail provides visitors with an insight into the complexity of the various realms. The addition of a five-hectare forest plot including the `Tirol Garden' to the historical grounds of the zoo has provided a first-class site for the nature trail. The path leading to the `Tirolerhof' is also ideally suited for the project.

Beyond enjoying the diversity of species in the zoo, visitors can now inform themselves about our native fauna and flora. The forest habitat is one of Austria's great natural resources. The trail seeks to show the interrelationship between `Nature–

Forest–Forestry–Economy', and demonstrates a responsible approach to utilizing the forest as a natural resource and source of raw material.

The term `ecosystem' is not restricted to any specific size or surface area, and can be equally applied to the forest in general, or to a red beech forest or a specific forest stand. An ecosystem must contain a number of different functional units:

– Producers: green plants, which build up their own structure from inorganic material;

– Consumers: organisms that feed on other organisms;

– Reducers: organisms that break down organic substances and ultimately make them available once again to the producers;

– The abiotic realm.

Organisms have quite specific demands on their environment and, depending on the species, are therefore more or less bound to specific habitats. The abiotic factors in this habitat (temperature, light, water, chemical factors, mechanical factors) exert an influence on the organisms. Each habitat is inhabited by a different set of organisms that are linked in a web of mutual interdependencies and form a common community.

The project is devoted to the forest-related ecosystem as a whole, and treats a range of additional environmental topics. These specific topics are naturally supplemented by presentations of broader interest (for example, soil profiles). This refreshing approach makes any excursion to Schönbrunn Zoo into an informal lesson in environmental awareness with many unforgettable impressions.

Gaby V. Schwammer,

Head of Zoo Education

Thoiry Zoo, France

In 1997, the zoo drafted a management plan to review its animal collection, breeding policy, animal exhibits and holding facilities. The remaining three hybrid bears and tigers were sterilised, and breeding of American black bears has been terminated following recommendations of the EEP Bear TAG to phase out this species from European collections. This decision will allow eventual exhibition of free-ranging European brown bears (Ursus a. arctos) in the eight-hectare woodland bear enclosure.

In reviewing its collection, Thoiry Zoo is turning to endangered European species, to raise public awareness through a variety of educational programmes on the dangers which threaten the local fauna. For this reason, a European otter enclosure was built in 1998 according to the EEP recommendations. The naturalistic outdoor exhibit is divided into a male (130 m2) and a female section (300 m2). The enclosure layout provides the otters with close to natural mental and physical stimuli. A river of varying width and depth runs through both enclosures, dividing the land area into a number of little islands. The water is cleaned through a sand and UV filter. The visitors can watch the otters underwater through windows. The sleeping dens are always accessible to the animals, and a network of underground tunnels allows for their stress-free movement from the enclosure to their den and from one exhibit to the other. The flora of the enclosures was carefully chosen to imitate the otters' natural habitat, with a variety of reeds and other semi-aquatic plants, as well as willow trees to provide shade.

This otter exhibit was built on the site which used to house the three hybrid bears. These bears lived in a 400 m2 concrete pit totally unsuitable to their needs until January 1998, when they were moved to a 7000 m2 woodland enclosure surrounded by a double electric fence.

Thoiry's old, outdated reptile facilities were replaced by a new reptile house in the summer of 1998. All exhibits have natural substrates and plants, imitating their inhabitants' natural habitats, and independently controlled temperature, humidity and ventilation. Infra-red lamps create various different temperature levels, and all exhibits also have access to natural sunlight and UV light. The house includes an enclosure for Komodo dragons, as we are planning to play a more active role in reptile conservation.

The zoo is currently building an off-exhibit breeding facility for European mink, which will be functional in November 1998. It will have the capacity to house up to 20 mink in individual outdoor enclosures.

Abridged from Colomba de La Panouse in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

News in Brief

At the Zoological Society of London's 1998 Annual General Meeting, George Rabb, director of Brookfield Zoo, was presented with the Society's Silver Medal for 1997 in recognition of his outstanding contribution to animal conservation at the world level. The medal is awarded only occasionally to individuals who have made contributions to the understanding and appreciation of zoology, including such activities as public education in natural history and wildlife conservation.

S. Katzen in AZA Communiqué (September 1998)

* * * * *

The weather is quite hard at Ranua Wildlife Park, Finland, in March and April, when the wild boars (Sus scrofa) give birth to their offspring. Normally the snow is around a metre deep and the temperature approximately minus 20° C at this time. Although there is an inside enclosure, the mothers prefer to raise their young outside in nests of hay and branches which they build themselves. A litter was only once lost: this occurred in 1997 when the temperature was minus 36° C. Two litters of six and five young were raised this year.

Elina Torvinen in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

* * * * *

At the 12th annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology in July, a topic which featured strongly throughout the conference was the developing science of making decisions with incomplete or uncertain data. For zoos, incomplete and uncertain data regarding taxonomy, pedigree and wild status regularly frustrate the decision-making process. Clearly there is a need for zoos to trial and/or develop sensible, practical ways of working with uncertainty in order to deal with their immediate needs. Once developed and tested, there might be opportunities for applying such techniques in fields where the decisions made have much more profound and far-reaching consequences.

Abridged from Caroline Lees in ARAZPA Newsletter No. 39 (August 1998)

* * * * *

Two Amur tiger cubs born on 7 October at Indianapolis Zoo are of especial importance to the breeding program for the subspecies. Their mother Lena, who arrived at the zoo in May 1993, was born in the wild. Poachers in Russia made her an orphan when they killed her mother; but rescuers were eventually able to find her four cubs, famished and in poor condition. Two later died, but the surviving pair – Lena and a male named Khuntami - were sent to the U.S.A. to help in expanding the gene pool of captive Amur tigers.

Abridged from an Indianapolis Zoo press release

* * * * *

Three Asian elephant calves were born in Britain in August 1998, two females at Twycross and a male at Port Lympne. The Twycross mothers had travelled to Chester Zoo in October 1996 to be mated with Chang, Chester's bull elephant, and returned to Twycross a year later after both became pregnant. There are currently five U.K. zoos that breed elephants – Belfast, Chester, Howletts, Port Lympne and Twycross.

* * * * *

A southern ground hornbill hatched at Tracy Aviary, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., on 22 February. The imprinted sire has been at the aviary since 1991 and the dam since 1984. This is believed to be the first time an imprinted hornbill has successfully reproduced. The chick was parent-raised with supplemental feeding by keepers. Due to the sire's aggression, he had to be separated from the chick by a fence; but despite this, he still played a major role in the parenting of the chick, by passing food through the fence to the dam and offspring.

H. Seitz in AZA Communiqué (October 1998)

* * * * *

For the past 30 years, the Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo has run a marine turtle research and conservation project in collaboration with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation. Turtles are captured, measured and weighed, and an identifying tag is fixed to each animal before it is released. During August 1998, the project team captured and tagged 103 green turtles, and three were fitted with satellite transmitters to follow their movements through the open ocean. Since the program's inception, tagged turtles have re-appeared over a wide area including Nicaragua, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Grenada and St Lucia.

AZA Communiqué (November 1998)

* * * * *

On 31 May 1998, two New Guinea crocodiles (C. novaeguineae) hatched in an incubator at Wuppertal Zoo, Germany. The female had laid a clutch of 20 eggs. The parents have been living at the zoo since 1975 and 1976 respectively, and were about two years old when they arrived. Both are not yet fully grown, measuring 1.8 m (female) and 2.4 m (male). Only very few New Guinea crocodiles have ever been kept outside New Guinea, and this is probably the first breeding success anywhere else in the world.

Ulrich Schürer in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

* * * * *

Krakow Zoo, Poland, reports the hatching of an artificially-incubated Andean condor in August 1998. This is the sixth chick hatched at the zoo since breeding started in 1992. All the offspring have been females, of whom four survived and two died during hand-rearing. The breeding pair was established in 1983. The Zoo is currently trying to form a second breeding pair from a female hatched in 1992 and a male from Ostrava Zoo, Czech Republic.

Józef Skotnicki in EAZA News No. 24 (Oct.–Dec. 1998)

* * * * *

Josephine, a great Indian hornbill at London Zoo, died in November. She was the zoo's oldest bird, at an estimated age of 52 – she was already mature when she arrived from a circus in 1951. Despite being introduced to several males, Josephine never mated, and only once laid an infertile egg, in 1989; her affection was reserved for her keepers, to whom she would offer morsels of food.

17–18 April 1999

ABWAK – Then, Now and the Future

25th Anniversary Conference

To be held at Marwell Zoological Park, Hampshire, U.K.

This weekend meeting will be split into three sections focusing on the past, present and future of animal husbandry. Topics will include collection management, veterinary techniques, extinct species, breeding programmes, education and presentations, public perceptions, enrichment, reintroduction programmes and many more.

Our out-going President, Roger Wheater, will give the keynote speech, and our after-dinner entertainment will be provided by Johnny Morris.

Registration details and poster abstract forms are available from ABWAK Secretary Luke Gates, 19 Albany Road, West Green, West Sussex RH17 7BY (e-mail: lgdn@pinnipedia.demon.co.uk). We are also seeking sponsorship for this event, so please let Luke know if you can help in any way.

ABWAK Chairman: Julie Croucher, c/o Chester Zoo

(e-mail: juliec@chesterzoo.co.uk)



RECENT ARTICLES

Baker, W.K.: How efficient can a written emergency protocol be when a crisis occurs, and does it really help at all? Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 11 (1998), pp. 426–427.

Baker, W.K.: What can you do when zoological safety and internal politics conflict with each other? Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 9 (1998), pp. 342–345.

Baker, W.K.: What exactly is emergency support equipment? Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 10 (1998), pp. 384–385.

Baltz, A.P.: The assessment of reproductive potential in Micronesian kingfisher pairs. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 425–432. [Halcyon c. cinnamomina is extinct in the wild and survives only in U.S. zoos. Although pairs have reproduced in captivity, the captive-breeding programme has been plagued with inconsistencies in reproductive success. One problem has been determining whether birds housed as reproductive pairs have really established pair-bonds. The behaviour of newly paired birds may provide information that could be used to predict future reproductive success. Observations were conducted for 90 minutes immediately after introduction of five new pairs at three zoos. It was found that the newly introduced pairs that sat in close proximity, were non-aggressive and engaged in nest activity soon after introduction reproduced, whereas pairs that did not display this combination of behaviours were unproductive. Observations of four of the successful pairs for a month after introduction failed to provide additional information relevant to the assessment of pair status. Although long-term behavioural observations are also desirable, quick assessments such as these may be useful for determining the reproductive potential of more pairs than would be possible using traditional methods.]

Brickell, N., and Konigkramer, T.: Instances of aberrant plumage among African Serinus species. Avicultural Magazine Vol. 104, No. 2 (1998), pp. 53–54.

Britt, A.: Encouraging natural feeding behavior in captive-bred black and white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata variegata). Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 379–392. [The author's research was designed to assess whether a group of captive-bred lemurs at Chester Zoo exhibit behavioural deficiencies in relation to feeding compared to two wild groups in Betampona Reserve, Madagascar, and also to determine which of four methods of food presentation and two captive environments were most effective in encouraging natural feeding behaviour. Results from Betampona confirm the highly frugivorous and arboreal nature of V. variegata. Under almost all captive conditions, the zoo animals spent significantly less time feeding than their wild conspecifics. Suspensory feeding postures are an important adaptation enabling wild lemurs to harvest fruit from small branches. In the zoo lemurs, similar frequencies of use of such postures were most effectively encouraged by presenting food on the rooftop of a cage or suspended in wire baskets from trees and shrubs in a naturalistic island exhibit. As naturalistic captive environments allow lemurs to experience the challenges associated with feeding in the wild, it is strongly recommended that zoos endeavour to provide them with such conditions.]

Brown, J.: The need for routine elephant blood draws. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 9 (1998), pp. 357–359.

Card, W.C., Roberts, D.T., and Odum, R.A.: Does zoo herpetology have a future? Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 453–462. [Following a survey in 52 North American zoos, the authors conclude that zoo herpetology departments are not realizing their potential for formalized research and conservation projects, and propose recommendations for future involvement.]

Charlton, N.: The effects of an environmental enrichment device on the behaviour of captive jaguars. Ratel Vol. 25, No. 5 (1998), pp. 178–188. [Panthera onca; Marwell Zoo.]

Darcangelo, J.D.: Keeper's guide to the ruminant stomach. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 10 (1998), pp. 400–406.

Ellis, J.A.: Breeding the southern pied hornbill Anthracoceros albirostris convexus at Chessington World of Adventures, Surrey. Ratel Vol. 25, No. 5 (1998), pp. 189–191.

Frisbie, K.M.: Immunocontraception of captive species: a new approach to population management. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 9 (1998), pp. 346–350.

Gardner, L.: The first U.K. breeding of the crowned hornbill Tockus alboterminatus at Leeds Castle. Avicultural Magazine Vol. 104, No. 2 (1998), pp. 61–64.

Hansen, E.: Africanized bees in a zoological setting: a guide to bee swarm removal. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 11 (1998), pp. 432–434.

Hodges, J.R.: Saving the endangered orange-bellied parrakeet. Avicultural Magazine Vol. 104, No. 2 (1998), pp. 49–52. [Neophema chrysogaster.]

Hutchins, M., Roberts, M., Cox, C., and Crotty, M.J.: Marsupials and monotremes: a case study in regional collection planning. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 433–451.

Kidder, J.D., Foote, R.H., and Richmond, M.E.: Transcervical artificial insemination in the domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo). Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 393–404. [The authors achieved the first successful non-surgical artificial insemination in the domestic ferret. Their method may serve as a model for other mammals, with particular application to endangered species.]

Kopel, E.M.: Fossa breeding at the San Antonio Zoo. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 11 (1998), pp. 430–431. [Cryptoprocta ferox.]

Lindburg, D.G., and Durrant, B.S.: Delayed reproduction: the good and the bad. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 369–371. [Discusses some problems associated with attempts to breed from zoo animals in later life.]

Mamede-Costa, A., and Gobbi, N.: The black lion tamarin Leontopithecus chrysopygus – its conservation and management. Oryx Vol. 32, No. 4 (1998), pp. 295–300.

Miyaki, C.Y., Griffiths, R., Orr, K., Nahum, L.A., Pereira, S.L., and Wajntal, A.: Sex identification of parrots, toucans, and curassows by PCR: perspectives for wild and captive population studies. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 415–423. [The authors confirmed the accuracy of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based method for sexing in three disparate avian orders, testing it on 44 species of parrot, seven of toucan, and eight of curassow. The method proved to be a convenient, safe and simple technique for sex identification of endangered species in zoos and in the field. Unlike sexual dimorphism, it is age-independent, so both adults and juveniles can be sexed; samples of blood or feathers can be easily collected and stored at room temperature, which is of particular importance for studies of wild birds; and as moulted feathers are a source of suitable DNA samples, and their collection involves no stress to the bird, the technique will be helpful for the study and conservation of rare species.]

Moran, J.M.: International Crane Foundation: a model of conservation. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 11 (1998), pp. 448–449.

Müller, M., and Neumann, N.: Keeping and breeding fig parrots of the genus Psittaculirostris at Vogelpark Walsrode, Germany. Avicultural Magazine Vol. 104, No. 2 (1998), pp. 55–60.

Murray, A.J., Waran, N.K., and Young, R.J.: Environmental enrichment for Australian mammals. Animal Welfare Vol. 7, No. 4 (1998), pp. 415–425. [The authors investigated the effectiveness of feeding enrichment in promoting behavioural diversity, enclosure usage and species-typical behaviours in ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) and yellow-bellied glider (Petaurus australis). The use of a live insect dispenser decreased grooming and increased out-of-sight and social behaviour in the ghost bat. Artificial gum trees promoted species-typical behaviours in the yellow-bellied glider.]

Olivera, M.: The present status of the Madagascar teal (Anas bernieri). Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 11 (1998), pp. 441–445.

Read, B.: A program for certification of zoo management personnel. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 373–377.

Reed-Smith, J., and Kumpf, M.: Snow leopards (Uncia uncia): family group management alternatives. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 10 (1998), pp. 386–391. [John Ball Zoo and Denver Zoo.]

Reichling, S.B., and Gutzke, W.H.N.: Phenotypic consequences of incubation temperature and feeding regimen in captive-bred tarantulas. Zoo Biology Vol. 17, No. 5 (1998), pp. 405–414. [Memphis Zoo; 18 oothecae of the African spider Pterinochilus murinus were incubated at three different temperatures, and neonates were reared under high or low feeding regimens. Sex ratios were not affected by these differences. Significantly more massive adult females resulted from eggs incubated at a high temperature (31.5° C) and fed heavily as juveniles; significantly more massive adult males resulted from eggs incubated at a moderate temperature (27.0° C) and fed heavily as juveniles. The authors conclude that artificial incubation protocols and juvenile husbandry methods may affect the fitness of captive populations and individuals intended for release into native habitat.]

Tardona, D.R., and Tardona, J.H.: Linking in situ and ex situ wildlife conservation. Animal Keepers' Forum Vol. 25, No. 9 (1998), pp. 361–364. [A joint programme by Jacksonville Zoo and the National Park Service to promote conservation of native wildlife in north-east Florida.]

Whalley, P., and Whitear, J.: Chester Zoo's Monkey Islands exhibit. Ratel Vol. 25, No. 5 (1998), pp. 167–176.

Publishers of the periodicals listed:

Animal Keepers' Forum, American Association of Zoo Keepers, 635 S.W. Gage Boulevard, Topeka, Kansas 66606–2066, U.S.A.

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

Avicultural Magazine, Avicultural Society, c/o Bristol Zoo, Bristol BS8 3HA, U.K.

Oryx, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd (for Fauna and Flora Preservation Society), Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL, U.K.

Ratel, Association of British Wild Animal Keepers, 12 Tackley Road, Eastville, Bristol BS5 6UQ, U.K.

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

Reintroduction guidelines published

The IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG) recently published a booklet IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions. This provides more detailed protocols than the previous 1987 IUCN Position Statement on the Translocation of Living Organisms. The booklet was developed due to an increasing demand felt by re-introduction practitioners for detailed guidelines.

The guidelines do not represent a static set of protocols, but ones that are continuously evolving as new ideas are developed and applied in re-introduction projects. They should act as a launching pad for the development of taxon- and species-specific guidelines, and the RSG would like to receive criticisms, both positive and negative, arising from their application in designing and implementing re-introduction projects. Such feedback will enable constructive adjustments to be made to future updates, or lead to the development of specific guidelines.

The new guidelines have been published in the following language combinations: Arabic/English, Chinese/English, French/English, Russian/English, Spanish/English, and English-only. To obtain copies, please contact: Pritpal S. Soorae, Technical Project Officer, IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, African Wildlife Foundation, P.O. Box 48177, Nairobi, Kenya (Fax: (+254–2)–710372; E-mail: psoorae@awfke.org.)



Index to Contributors, International Zoo News Volume 45 (1998)

Adler, H. Jörg, Wirth, Roland, & Speck, Thomas, 202–207

Agoramoorthy, Govindasamy, 71–77

Ayala, L., 60

Baker, B., 122

Banks, Chris, 243, 453

Baur, Bruno, see Zschokke, Samuel

Baynes, S., 164–165

Bell, Catharine, 373–374

Birchenough, Phillippa, 241–242

Blaszkiewitz, Bernhard, 57–58, 121, 247, 456

Blayney, William, 386

Bobko, Christine, & Phillips, Megan, 231

Bora, Nilom, see Talukdar, Bibhab Kumar

Bowden, Chris, 436–437

Brewer, Bruce, & Saunders-Menier, Nancy, 104–105

Brown, Keith, 440

Browne, R.K., Clulow, J., & Mahony, M., 227–228

Cade, Pat, 175–176

Casares, Miguel, 166–167

Cimino, Ray, 150–152, 497–498

Clark, Peter, 55

Clulow, J., see Browne, R.K.

Collins, D., 181–182

Cronin, Alison, 112

Crumpler, Mike, 440–441

Cunningham, Andrew A., see Daszak, Peter

Curzon, Mike, 324

Daszak, Peter, & Cunningham, Andrew A., 501

Davis, Malia, 109–110

de La Panouse, Colomba, 509–510

de Ruiter, Maarten, 2–3, 30, 58, 296, 304–305, 495–496

Demlong, M., 54

Desbiez, Arnaud, & Jardin, Thierry, 105

Diver, Shirley, 323–324

Dolan, James M., 381–382

Downman, Mike, 208–211

Dudic, Snezana, 59

Durrell, Lee, 183

Edwards, Jason, 245–247

Ellerton, Nicholas, 438

Ellis, John, 123

Ettling, Jeff, 165

Fainstein, Vladimir, see Jefimova, Jelena

Farabaugh, Susan, see Rideout, Bruce

Florio, Pier Lorenzo, 133–139, 154, 454–455

Fridman, Tina, & Rambino, Paul, 388–389

Fujitani, T., Nishio, K., & Hashikawa, H., 243–244

Fukaya, Takashi, 120

Garner, Rodney, 58–59

Gates, Luke, 448

Gerlach, Justin, 4–10, 449

Gibson, Richard C., 110, 180

Gippoliti, Spartaco, 117–118, 278–284

Glazier, J., 393

Gompper, M.E., & Williams, E.S., 501

Gould, Nicholas, 70, 91–92, 130, 157–158, 159–162, 190, 223–225, 299–302, 368–370, 371–372, 433–434, 466

Gregson, Jo, 245

Groves, John G., 167, 453–454

Gupta, Brij Kishor, 427–430

Hancock, David, 102

Hankey, Lisa, 315

Harmon, John, 121–122

Hartley, John, 228

Harvey, Nancy, see Rideout, Bruce

Hashikawa, H., see Fujitani, T.

Hennache, Alain, 95–97, 503

Hettler, L., 123, 182

Heuschele, Werner P., 382–384

Hibbard, Chris, 122

Holst, Bengt, 177–178

Honegger, René E., 291–294

Hötte, Michiel, 97–98

Hudson, Rick, 387

Irven, Paul M., 155–156, 297–298, 452–453

Jardin, Thierry, see Desbiez, Arnaud

Jefimova, Jelena, & Fainstein, Vladimir, 57

Johann, Achim, 169–171, 391–392, 406–413

Joines, Steven, 506–507

Jones, Carl, 163–164

Jones, Marvin L., 32–33, 258–260, 322–323

Jonsson, Stefan, 502

Julin, Henning, 172

Kapic, Tomás, 59, 505

Katzen, S., 510

Kaumanns, Werner, see Schwitzer, Christoph

Kavková, Renata, & Králicková, Jitka, 115–116

Kawata, Ken, 11–20, 32–33, 414–421

Keeling, Clinton, 30, 154–155, 296–297, 366–367

Kienitz, S., 386–387

King, Cathy, 306

Kojima, Y., & Sugita, H., 320

Králicková, Jitka, see Kavková, Renata

Kunter, Vickie, 178–179

Kurtz, Mick, 112–113

LaMarca, L., 123

Lamprey, Vincent, 146–149

Langwell, J., 120

Leach, Matt, Young, Rob, & Waran, Natalie, 285–290

Lees, Caroline, 510–511

Lemm, J., 123

Lenoe, Sara, 506

Liggett, D., 177

Lloyd, J., 60

Louwman, Jan W.W., 320–322, 392–393

Lücker, H., 179, 448–449

McMillan, G., 393

Mahony, M., see Browne, R.K.

Mainka, Susan, see Reading, Richard P.

Mallinson, Jeremy J.C., 140–145

Mansard, Pat, 55–56, 318–319

Maran, Tiit, 319–320

Margulis, Sue, 173–175

Martin, Esmond, see Vigne, Lucy

Medina, S., 374

Miller, Eric, 167–168

Mills, Gus, see Reading, Richard P.

Mills, James, & Reinartz, Gay, 435

Mohr, R., 389–390

Moiser, Chris, 456–458

Moisson, Pierre, 53–54

Montes, H., 123

Newman, E., 183

Nishio, K., see Fujitani, T.

Partridge, John, 172

Pawley, Ray, 212–219

Penny, C., 59

Peterson, K., 53

Radcliffe, Charlie, 51–52

Rambino, Paul, see Fridman, Tina

Reading, Richard P., Mainka, Susan, Zhi, Lu, & Mills, Gus, 226–227

Rehák, Ivan, & Velenský, Petr, 118–119

Reichenbach, Herman, 31–32, 33–34, 92–93, 158–159, 225, 370–371, 468–475, 499–500

Reinartz, Gay, see Mills, James

Rideout, Bruce, Harvey, Nancy, & Farabaugh, Susan, 39–41

Robinson, Michael H., 113–115

Rogers, K., 60, 183

Rost, A., 504

Russell, Trent, 247

Rylands, Anthony B., 230

Sánchez, Gustavo, & Waugh, David, 335–340

Sarnecka-Wozniak, Maria, 179

Saunders-Menier, Nancy, see Brewer, Bruce

Schildger, Bernd, see Tenhu, Hanna

Schilfarth, Jürgen, 42–43, 102–103, 107, 117, 122, 123, 317–318, 324

Schmid, Jeannette, 341–351, 476–486

Schmidt, Allan, 455–456

Schubel, Jerry R., 244

Schulman, Mark, 87–89, 306–307

Schürer, Ulrich, 511–512

Schwammer, Gaby V., 508–509

Schwammer, Harald, 101

Schwitzer, Christoph, 191–201

Schwitzer, Christoph, & Kaumanns, Werner, 233–234

Shackleton, D.M., 228–229

Shoemaker, Alan H., 119–120, 247, 319, 454

Simmons, Kim, 111

Skipper, Gert, 241

Smith, Linelle, 106–107

Smith, Pamela, 324

Speck, Thomas, see Adler, H. Jörg

Stattersfield, Alison, 37–38

Stewart, Gillian, 451–452

Studer, Peter, see Zschokke, Samuel

Sugita, H., see Kojima, Y.

Sweeney, Roger G., 181, 352–362, 487–494

Swengel, Fred, 402–405

Talbot-Rosevear, Mary G., 334

Talukdar, Bibhab Kumar, & Bora, Nilom, 227

Tardy, Frédéric, 390–391

Taylor, Matt, 116

Tekin, Aydan, 504

Tenhu, Hanna, & Schildger, Bernd, 385

Terényi, Melinda, 502–503

Torikai, Kyoko, 78–80

Torvinen, Elina, 510

Tuson, John, 497

Vaccaro, J., 458

van Herk, Robert, & Westerveld, Ben, 182

Venuti-Ablaza, D., 54

Vigne, Lucy, & Martin, Esmond, 22–25, 36–37, 303–304

Wakefield, Simon, 236–239

Waran, Natalie, see Leach, Matt

Waugh, David, see Sánchez, Gustavo

Webb, T., 60–61

Weigel, John, 446–447

Weiher, Ullie, 52–53

Westerveld, Ben, see van Herk, Robert

Wilkinson, Roger, 438–440

Williams, B., 108

Williams, E.S., see Gompper, M.E.

Wirth, Roland, see Adler, H. Jörg

Wisniewski, Pat, 449–450

Wood, A., 115

Wood, Richard J., 82–85, 365–366

Woodfine, Tim, 239–240

Woodroffe, Rosie, 94–95

Woollard, Stephen P., 422–426

Young, Rob, see Leach, Matt

Zaborra, Cesare Avesani, 116–117

Zhi, Lu, see Reading, Richard P.

Zima, Jaroslav, 232–233

Zschokke, Samuel, Studer, Peter, & Baur, Bruno, 261–276

Zubiri, Claudio Sillero, 98–99



Index to Books Reviewed, International Zoo News Volume 45 (1998)

Conant, Roger: A Field Guide to the Life and Times of Roger Conant, 32–33

Datta, Ann (ed.): John Gould in Australia: Letters and Drawings, 91–92

del Hoyo, Josep, Elliott, Andrew, and Sargatal, Jordi (eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World: Volume 4 – Sandgrouse to Cuckoos, 157–158

Duve, Karen, and Völker, Thies: Lexikon Berümter Tiere, 33–34

European Elephant Group (eds.): Elefanten in Zoo und Circus (Teil 2 – Nordamerika), 161–162

Gibbons, Edward F., Durrant, Barbara S., and Demarest, Jack (eds.): Conservation of Endangered Species in Captivity: an Interdisciplinary Approach, 433–434

Gibbs, Lynne: Pooey Zoo, 183

Heaney, Lawrence R., & Regalado, Jacinto C.: Vanishing Treasures of the Philippine Rain Forest, 371–372

Houck, Lynne D., and Drickamer, Lee C.: Foundations of Animal Behavior: Classic Papers with Commentaries, 159–160

Jablonski, Nina G.: The Natural History of the Doucs and Snub-nosed Monkeys, 499–500

Juniper, Tony, and Parr, Mike: Parrots: a Guide to the Parrots of the World, 301–302

Lyttle, Jeff: Gorillas in our Midst: the Story of the Columbus Zoo Gorillas, 369–370

Moeller, Heinz F.: Der Beutelwolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus), 158–159

Murphy, John C., and Henderson, Robert W.: Tales of Giant Snakes: a Historical Natural History of Anacondas and Pythons, 31–32

Nielsen, Claus: Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla, 159–161

Quammen, David: The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions, 223–224

Ritvo, Harriet: The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagination, 370–371

Rogner, Manfred (trans. John Hackworth): Lizards, 368–369

Schaller, George B.: Wildlife of the Tibetan Steppe, 299–301

Shepherdson, David J., Mellen, Jill D., and Hutchins, Michael (eds.): Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals, 433–434

Stattersfield, Alison J., Crosby, Michael J., Long, Adrian J., and Wege, David C.: Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation

Wothe, Konrad, and Clemens, Carsten: Orang Utans, 92–93



Subject Index, International Zoo News Volume 45 (1998)

[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. As a cumulative index to the last six volumes is currently in preparation, I would be grateful to be informed of any errors or omissions. – Ed.]

Aalborg Zoo, Denmark, 40-year-old male orang-utan, 172

Acinonyx jubatus,

behavioural monitoring of oestrus, 463–464

conservation, Iran, 373

fostering, Wassenaar Wildlife Breeding Centre, 320–322

mixed exhibit with white rhino, Boras Zoo, 502

Adelaide Zoo, South Australia,

biological pest control, botanic gardens, white-browed woodswallow, 446

free-ranging cotton-top tamarin, 241

Afropavo congensis, breeding, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 451–452

Ailuropoda melanoleuca, reintroduction, 226–227

'Alala, see Corvus hawaiiensis

Alces alces, captive diet, 66

Alligator, Chinese, see Alligator sinensis

Alligator sinensis, Denver Zoo, 106–107

Alytes muletensis, recovery programme, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 59–60

Amazon, red-spectacled, see Amazona pretrei

Amazona pretrei, husbandry and breeding, Loro Parque, 352–362

Amersfoort Zoo, the Netherlands, pair-formation, Chilean flamingo, 325–326

Amphibians, fungal disease as cause of death, 501

Anas bernieri, breeding, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 387–388

Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, self-selection pairing, 166

Anteater, giant, see Myrmecophaga tridactyla

Antechinus apicalis, breeding and release, Perth Zoo, 318

Antelope, pronghorn, see Antilocapra americana

Antilocapra americana, Heritage Park Zoo, 108–109

Aptenodytes patagonicus,

breeding, Edinburgh Zoo, 376–377

collecting eggs from wild, South Georgia, 487–494

Apteryx australis mantelli, breeding, Taronga Zoo, 122

Aracari, curl-crested, see Pteroglossus beauharnaesii

Artamus superciliosus, biological pest control, Adelaide Botanic Gardens, 446

Artificial insemination,

banteng, St Louis Zoo, 505

Blyth's tragopan, Clères Zoo, 503

elephants, 393, 450–451

Arvicola terrestris, mixed exhibit with grey squirrel, Witton Country Park, 124

Asses, Asian wild, see Equus hemionus

Astrapia stephaniae, Rainforest Habitat, 55

Auckland Zoo, New Zealand, breeding, robust skink, 315

Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.,

breeding, milky stork, 458

mixed exhibit, South American tapir and maned wolf, 59

recovery plan, Mississippi sandhill crane, 164–165

Australian Reptile Park, Somersby, New South Wales, Australia, 446–447

Avocet, pied, see Recurvirostra avosetta

Baboon, olive, see Papio anubis; yellow, see P. cynocephalus

Baku Zoo, Azerbaijan, 241–242

Balearica regulorum gibbericeps, free mate choice, Loro Parque, 335–340

Banteng, see Bos javanicus

Barriers, possible alternatives to, 190, 366–367

Bear, brown, see Ursus arctos; polar, see Thalarctos maritimus; spectacled, see Tremarctos ornatus

Berlin Zoo, Germany,

annual report 1997, 308–314

Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo, research and conservation project, marine turtles, 511

Berne Animal Park, Switzerland, parasite infection, musk ox, 385

Bird of paradise, Princess Stephanie's, see Astrapia stephaniae; Raggi's, see Paradisaea raggiana

Birds,

captive breeding and conservation, 402–405

conservation, 37–38

Hawaiian, conservation, Peregrine Fund and San Diego CRES, 40–41, 435–436

killing of siblings in nest, 67

sexing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), 514–515

ultraviolet vision and markings, 190, 366

Birdworld, Farnham, Surrey, U.K., presented with turaco and curassow collection by Old House Bird Gardens Breeding Centre, 61

Bitis gabonica, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 183

Boa, Jamaican, see Epicrates subflavus; Madagascan tree, see Sanzinia madagascariensis; Round Island, see Casarea dussumieri; sand, see Eryx miliaris

Boar, wild, see Sus scrofa

Bongo, see Tragelaphus eurycerus

Bonito, Pacific, see Sarda chiliensis

Bonobo, see Pan paniscus

Boras Zoo, Sweden, mixed exhibit, white rhino and cheetah, 502

Bos javanicus, breeding by artificial insemination, St Louis Zoo, 505

Bramble Park Zoo, Watertown, South Dakota, U.S.A., golden-headed lion tamarin adopts orphan squirrel monkey, 60

Bristol Zoo, U.K.,

breeding and hand-rearing, two-toed sloth, 172, 324

breeding, dwarf crocodile, 502

funding in situ conservation, gorilla, Cameroon, 447–448

internet web site, 385–386

long-service awards for staff, 122–123

new walk-through, free-flight aviary, Indonesian and Philippine birds, 315–316

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

breeding, sand boa, 60–61

in situ study, yellow baboon, 173–175

walrus, 104–105

Buceros bicornis, death aged 52, London Zoo, 512

Bucorvus leadbeateri, breeding, Tracy Aviary, 511

Budapest Zoo, Hungary, renovation, pheasantry, 502–503

Budorcas taxicolor bedfordi, breeding, Tama Zoo, 120

Budorcas t. taxicolor, breeding, Dresden Zoo, 179

Bushbuck, harnessed, see Tragelaphus scriptus

Bustard, buff-crested, see Lophotis ruficrista; houbara, see Chlamydotis undulata

Cacatua haematuropygia, self-selection pairing, 166

Calgary Zoo, Alberta, Canada, raft as environmental enrichment, polar bear, 386

Callagur borneoensis, breeding, Fort Worth Zoo, 387

Camel, Arabian, see Camelus dromedarius

Camelus dromedarius, hybrid with llama, 122

Canis lupus baileyi, transfer from U.S. to Mexican facilities, 123

Canis simensis, proposed breeding facility, 98–99

Caprinae, status and conservation, 228–229

Carcharias taurus, breeding, Underwater World Mooloolaba, 58–59

Cardinalfish, Banggai, see Pterapogon kauderni

Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark, Hamburg, Germany, 468–475

Casarea dussumieri, breeding, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 387–388

Cassowary, see Casuarius casuarius

Casuarius casuarius, new enclosure, Rode Bird Gardens, 324

Cat, Asian golden, see Catopuma temminckii; fishing, see Felis viverrina; Pallas's, see Otocolobus manul

Catopuma temminckii, breeding, Wassenaar Wildlife Breeding Centre, 392–393

Centre d'Études et de Recherches Zoologiques Augeron (CERZA), Lisieux, France, spectacled bear, 105

Centro de Investigacion de Animales Silvestres de Itaipú (CIASI), Paraguay, 198

Ceratotherium simum,

mixed exhibit with cheetah, Boras Zoo, 502

Paignton Zoo, 116

proposed breeding sanctuary, Queensland, Australia, 59

Cercopithecus neglectus, mixed exhibit with gorilla, Melbourne Zoo, 52–53

Cheetah, see Acinonyx jubatus

Cherry Brook Zoo, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, 416

Chessington Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, Californian sea lion, 448

marine mammal symposium, 448

Chester Zoo, U.K.,

annual report 1997, 438–441

encouraging natural feeding behaviour, ruffed lemur, 513–514

mandrill, first captive breeding (1937), 30

planned National Pond Life Centre, 175–176

Chimpanzee, see Pan troglodytes

Chipangali Wildlife Orphanage, Zimbabwe, black rhino dietary study, 239–240

Chlamydotis undulata, hand- and hen-reared chicks compared, 463

Choloepus didactylus,

breeding and hand-rearing, Bristol Zoo, 172, 324

exhibit, Santa Barbara Zoo, 183

Chrotogale owstoni, breeding, Cuc Phuong National Park, 105–106

Chrysocyon brachyurus, mixed exhibit with South American tapir, Audubon Zoo, 59

Chuditch, see Dasyurus geoffroii

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

breeding, Asian elephant, 176

pregnancies and miscarriages, Sumatran rhino, 50, 316, 386

Cissa chinensis, breeding, Denver Zoo, 250

Civet, Owston's palm, see Chrotogale owstoni

Clères Zoo, France, breeding by artificial insemination, Blyth's tragopan, 503

Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio, U.S.A., breeding, pied tamarin, 183

Cockatoo, red-vented, see Cacatua haematuropygia

Coimbatore Zoo, management and breeding, verrucose frog, 427–430

Colchester Zoo, U.K., new African elephant enclosure, 176–177

Columba spp., captive breeding and conservation, 304–305

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

breeding, Banggai cardinalfish, 177

gorilla, 369–370

Condor, Andean, see Vultur gryphus

Conservation,

African wild dog, southern Africa, 94–95

Amur leopard, 97–98

Baird's tapir, Costa Rica, 99–101

birds, 37–38

birds, Hawaiian, 40–41

black rhino, Tanzania, 36–37

gorilla, Cameroon, 447–448

snow leopard, 38–39

waldrapp, Morocco, 436–437

Copenhagen Zoo, Denmark,

breeding, Caribbean flamingo, 177–178

death, Asian elephant, 123

Corals, propagation, Pittsburgh Zoo, 248–249

Corvus hawaiiensis, captive breeding, 183

Crane, East African crowned, see Balearica regulorum gibbericeps; Mississippi sandhill, see Grus canadensis pulla; red-crowned, see G. japonensis; Siberian white, see G. leucogeranus; white-naped, see G. vipio

Crax pauxi, breeding, San Antonio Zoo, 120

Criadouro de Animais Silvestres da Itaipú Binacional (CASIB), Brazil, 198

Crocodile, dwarf, see Osteolaemus tetraspis; New Guinea, see Crocodylus novaeguineae; Orinoco, see C. intermedius

Crocodylus intermedius, Dallas World Aquarium, 386–387

Crocodylus novaeguineae, breeding, Wuppertal Zoo, 511–512

Crow, Hawaiian, see Corvus hawaiiensis

Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam, breeding, Owston's palm civet, 105–106

Cuiabá Zoo, Brazil, 193–195

Cuon alpinus, breeding, Howletts Wild Animal Park, 45–46

Curassow, northern helmeted, see Crax pauxi

Curassows, presented to Birdworld, 61

Curitiba Zoo, Brazil, 195–197

Currumbin Sanctuary, Palm Beach, Queensland, Australia, breeding, brown honeyeater, 59

Cyclodina alani, breeding, Auckland Zoo, 315

Cynomys ludovicianus, training, Knoxville Zoo, 393

Dakar Zoo, Senegal, 87–89

Dallas World Aquarium, Texas, U.S.A., Orinoco crocodile, 386–387

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

mixed exhibit, lemurs (four spp.), 254–255

reintroduction of infant black rhino to mother, 253

Damaliscus hunteri, chromosomal study, San Diego CRES, 103

Danmarks Akvarium, Charlottenlund, Denmark, 50–51, 316

Dasyurus geoffroii, release, Perth Zoo, 318

Decision-making, with incomplete or uncertain data, 510–511

Deer, tufted, see Elaphodus cephalophus

Delma impar, breeding, Melbourne Zoo, 243

Dendrobates auratus,

breeding, Nagoya Higashiyama Zoo, 243

rearing techniques, Edinburgh Zoo, 127

Dendrobates ventrimaculatus, breeding, Nagoya Higashiyama Zoo, 243–244

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

annual report 1997, 441–445

breeding, long-tailed green magpie, 250

Chinese alligator, 106–107

conditioning for milk collection, bongo, 252–253

electric fishes, 51–52

infra-red therapy for arthritis, Asian elephant, 178–179

painting as environmental enrichment, black rhino, 242–243

Deroptyus accipitrinus, breeding, 495–496

Dhole, see Cuon alpinus

Dibbler, see Antechinus apicalis

Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, pregnancies and miscarriages, Cincinnati Zoo, 50, 316, 386

Diceros bicornis,

birth, Metro Washington Park Zoo, 53

breeding, Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, 48

conservation, Tanzania, 36–37

diet, 231, 239–240

painting as environmental enrichment, Denver Zoo, 242–243

proposed breeding sanctuary, Queensland, Australia, 59

red blood cells, oxidant sensitivity, 231

reintroduction of infant to mother, Dallas Zoo, 253

Dickerson Park Zoo, Springfield, Missouri, U.S.A., Asian elephant pregnant by artificial insemination, 393

Dipsochelys spp.,

Dresden Zoo, 448–449

survival in Seychelles, 353

Disease as factor in extinctions, 501

DNA samples, `banking', 254

Dog, Asian wild (dhole), see Cuon alpinus; African wild, see Lycaon pictus; black-tailed prairie, see Cynomys ludovicianus

Dove, Mariana fruit, see Ptilinopus roseicapilla

Dracaena guianensis, breeding, Prague Zoo, 505

Dresden Zoo, Germany,

breeding, Mishmi takin, 179

Seychelles giant tortoise identified, 448–449

Eagle, harpy, see Harpia harpyja

Edinburgh Zoo, U.K.,

annual report 1997, 375–381

breeding, king penguin, 376–377

rearing techniques, green poison arrow frog, 127

Education, zoo, history, 422–426

Eland, Lord Derby's (giant), see Taurotragus derbianus

Elaphe quatuorlineata, breeding and reintroduction, Schönbrunn Zoo, 101

Elaphodus cephalophus, Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, 57–58

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

Elephants,

captive breeding, 42–43

circus, new association to help, 102–103

management systems, 476–486

Elephas maximus,

birth to cow aged five years and nine months, Houston Zoo, 250–251

birth to six-year-old cow, Paris Zoo (1990), 117

breeding, Cincinnati Zoo, 176

breeding, Emmen Zoo, 107

breeding, Europe, 341–351

breeding, Paris Zoo, 324

breeding, Port Lympne, 511

breeding, Twycross Zoo, 511

captive breeding and infant mortality, 462–463

captive population, North America, 176

death of calf, Copenhagen Zoo, 123

death of Siam (52-year-old bull), Paris Zoo, 117

enrichment, olfactory, 285–290

infra-red therapy for arthritis, Denver Zoo, 178–179

musth in female, Honolulu Zoo, 109–110

Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, 49

pregnancy by artificial insemination, Dickerson Park Zoo, 393

stillbirths, Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, 121, 456

Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, 122

Emmen Zoo, the Netherlands, breeding, Asian elephant, 107

Endangered Primate Rescue Center, Cuc Phuong, Vietnam, 202–207

Endangered Species Breeding Unit, Martin Mere, U.K., 449–450

Environmental enrichment, 253–254

African wild dog, Philadelphia Zoo, 250

Asian elephant, olfactory, 285–290

birds, Paignton Zoo, 245

black rhino, Denver Zoo, 242–243

chimpanzee, 464

golden lion tamarin, 461

primates, Lion Country Safari, 388–389

Epicrates subflavus, conservation and captive management, Hope Zoo, Kingston, Jamaica, 165

Equids, taxonomy and status, 237–238

Equus grevyi, social behaviour, 237–238, 329–330

Equus hemionus, taxonomy, 237

Equus przewalskii, diet, 239

Eryx miliaris, breeding, Brookfield Zoo, 60–61

Falcon, northern aplomado, see Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Falco femoralis septentrionalis, captive breeding and release, Peregrine Fund and San Diego CRES, 39–40

Falco punctatus, conservation, captive breeding and release, 163–164

Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, new director, 183

Feline spongiform encephalopathy, 59, 156

Felis viverrina, hand-rearing, Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, 47

Ferret, black-footed, see Mustela nigripes

Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada, 420–421

Fishes, electric, Denver Zoo, 51–52

Flamingo, Caribbean, see Phoenicopterus r. ruber; Chilean, see P. chilensis

Fort Worth Zoo, Texas, U.S.A., breeding, Malaysian painted terrapin, 387

Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Glen Rose, Texas, U.S.A., breeding, ocelot, 108

Foz Tropicana Bird Park, Paraná, Brazil, 198

Frog, Amazonian poison-arrow, see Dendrobates ventrimaculatus; green (green-and-black) poison-arrow, see D. auratus; green-and-golden bell, see Litoria aurea; Ramsey Canyon leopard, see Rana subaquavocalis; spotted grass, see Limnodynastes tasmaniensis; verrucose, see Limnonectes keralensis

Galagos, new species, 230

Gallirallus owstoni, breeding, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Guam, 374

Gazella dama mhorr, conservation, Senegal, 306–307

Gazella gazella arabica, fencing, Omani Mammal Breeding Centre, 82–85

Gazella spekei, breeding, U.S. National Zoo, 393

Gazelle, Arabian, see Gazella gazella arabica; mhorr, see G. dama mhorr; Speke's, see G. spekei

Gdansk Zoo, Poland, breeding, Andean condor, 179

Geochelone elephantopus, research, Zürich Zoo and Loro Parque, 166–167

Geochelone sulcata, breeding, Linton Zoo, 111

German Primate Centre, experimental group encounters, lion-tailed macaque, 185–186

Geronticus eremita,

breeding, Kus Cenneti, 504

in situ conservation, Morocco, 436–437

Gibbon, Javan grey (silvery), see Hylobates moloch

Gingrich, Newt, visit to London Zoo, 60

Giraffa camelopardalis,

breeding, Gladys Porter Zoo, 123

young sired by male under three years old, Orana Park, 323–324

Giraffe, see Giraffa camelopardalis

Gladys Porter Zoo, Brownsville, Texas, U.S.A.,

breeding, giraffe, 123

breeding, grey-winged trumpeter, 182

breeding, harnessed bushbuck, 60

Glasgow Zoo, clouded leopard, 125–126

Global Positioning System, possible use for alternative to barriers, 190

Gobies, breeding, New Jersey State Aquarium, 54

Gorilla g. gorilla,

bachelor group, Loro Parque, 208–211

breeding, Pittsburgh Zoo, 122

Columbus Zoo, 369–370

death of 28-year-old male from heart attack, Kyoto Zoo, 182–183

fractures, treatment, 45

Howletts and Port Lympne Wild Animal Parks, 45

in situ conservation, Cameroon, 447–448

mixed exhibit with De Brazza's monkey, Melbourne Zoo, 52–53

new enclosure, Paignton Zoo, 390

rescue and reintroduction project, the Congo, Howletts and Port Lympne Foundation, 49

Grus canadensis pulla, captive breeding and release, 164–165

Grus japonensis, captive breeding and release, 389–390

Grus leucogeranus, breeding, Tama Zoo, 320

Grus vipio, captive breeding and release, 389–390

Gymnobelideus leadbeateri, breeding, Poznan Zoo, 118

Hagenbeck, see Carl Hagenbecks Tierpark

Halcyon cinnamomina, assessment of pair status, 513

Hamerton Wildlife Park, Huntingdon, U.K., death from ethylene-glycol poisoning, jaguarundi, 179–180

Hammerkop, see Scopus umbretta

Harpia harpyja, captive breeding and reintroduction, San Diego Zoo and Peregrine Fund, 373–374

Heloderma spp., breeding, 232–233

Heritage Park Zoo, Prescott, Arizona, U.S.A.,

sculpture, praying mantis, 317

pronghorn antelope, 108–109

Herpailurus yaguarondi, death from ethylene-glycol poisoning, Hamerton Wildlife Park, 179–180

Highland Wildlife Park, U.K., annual report 1997, 379

Hirola, see Damaliscus hunteri

Honeyeater, brown, see Lichmera indistincta

Honolulu Zoo, Hawaii, U.S.A. musth in female Asian elephant, 109–110

Hornbill, great Indian, see Buceros bicornis; southern ground, see Bucorvus leadbeateri

Hornbills,

breeding, Linton Zoo, 111

captive census, 102

Horse, Przewalski's, see Equus przewalskii

Houston Zoo, Texas, U.S.A., birth to Asian elephant cow at five years and nine months old, 250–251

Howletts Wild Animal Park, U.K., annual report 1998–1997, 44–49

Hummingbirds, captive breeding, 42

Huntsman Aquarium Museum, St Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada, 416–417

Hydrosaurus spp., taxonomy and conservation, 306

Hylobates moloch, breeding, Perth Zoo, 324

Ibis, giant, see Thaumatibis gigantea; northern bald (waldrapp), see Geronticus eremita

Icterus dominicensis oberi, emergency rescue plan, 228

Iguana, Lesser Antilles, see Iguana delicatissima

Iguana delicatissima, breeding, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 110

Indianapolis Zoo, Indiana, U.S.A.,

African elephant pregnant by artificial insemination, 450–451

breeding, Amur tiger, 511

Invertebrates, nutrient values, 325

Jacksonville Zoo, Florida, U.S.A., jaguar, wild-born, 504

Jaguar, see Panthera onca

Jaguarundi, see Herpailurus yaguarondi

Japan, raptors in zoos, 11–20

Jellyfish exhibit, Rio Grande Zoo, 56–57

Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, Channel Islands,

breeding, Congo peafowl, 451–452

breeding, Lesser Antilles iguana, 110

breeding, Madagascan tree boa, 180

breeding, Madagascar teal, 387–388

breeding, Round Island boa, 388

Gabon viper, 183

recovery programme, Mallorcan midwife toad, 59–60

Keauhou Bird Conservation Center, Hawaii, breeding, puaiohi, 435–436

Keepers, private, 2–3

Kestrel, Mauritius, see Falco punctatus

Kingfisher, Micronesian, see Halcyon cinnamomina

Kiwi, North Island brown, see Apteryx australis mantelli

Knoxville Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A.,

training, African elephant, 110–111

training, prairie dog, 393

Krakow Zoo, Poland, breeding, Andean condor, 512

Kus Cenneti, Bayramoglu, Turkey, breeding, waldrapp, 504

Kyoto Zoo, Japan, death of 28-year-old male gorilla from heart attack, 182–183

Lagothrix lagothricha, Monkey World, 112, 389

Lama glama, hybrid with camel, 122

Langur, banded, see Presbytis melalophos; grey-shanked douc, see Pygathrix nemaeus cinereus; Javan, see Trachypithecus auratus

Lemur, ruffed, see Varecia variegata

Lemurs,

mixed exhibit (four spp.), Dallas Zoo, 254–255

mixed exhibit, Monkey World, 112

Leontopithecus chrysomelas, adopts orphan squirrel monkey, Bramble Park Zoo, 60

Leopard, see Panthera pardus; Amur, see P. p. orientalis; clouded, see Neofelis nebulosa; snow, see Uncia uncia

Leopardus pardalis, breeding, Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, 108

Leopardus wiedi, breeding, Ridgeway Trust for Endangered Cats, 55–56, 318–319

Leucopsar rothschildi, release, Bali, 459–460

Lichmera indistincta, breeding, Currumbin Sanctuary, 59

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, high-density tadpole rearing, 227–228

Limnonectes keralensis, management and breeding, Coimbatore Zoo, 427–430

Linton Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, hornbills, 111

breeding, African spurred tortoise, 111

Lion Country Safari, West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A., environmental enrichment feeder boxes, primates, 388–389

Litoria aurea,

captive-breeding and release, Taronga Zoo, 247

rescue plan, Australian Reptile Park, 446–447

Lizard, caiman, see Dracaena guianensis; sail-finned, see Hydrosaurus spp.; striped legless, see Delma impar

Llama, see Lama glama

Lobster, spiny, see Palinurus vulgaris

London Zoo, U.K.,

death aged 52, great Indian hornbill, 512

disease responsible for death of last Partula turgida specimens, 501

Mappin Terraces redeveloped, 123

visit by Newt Gingrich, 60

Lophotis ruficrista, breeding, San Antonio Zoo, 120

Lophura edwardsi, studbook, 95–97

Lories and lorikeets, new exhibit, St Louis Zoo, 506

Loris, pygmy, see Nycticebus pygmaeus

Loro Parque, Canary Islands, Spain,

bachelor group, gorilla, 208–211

egg-collecting expedition, king penguin, South Georgia, 487–494

foster-rearing, parrots, 181

free mate choice, East African crowned crane, 335–340

husbandry and breeding, red-spectacled amazon, 352–362

research, Galapagos giant tortoise, 166–167

Los Angeles Zoo, California, U.S.A., breeding, mountain tapir, 123

Loxodonta africana,

breeding, Howletts Wild Animal Park, 48–49

breeding, Parque de la Naturaleza de Cabarceno, 317–318

keeper dies buried in dung, 324

new enclosure, Colchester Zoo, 176–177

new exhibit, Schönbrunn Zoo, 66

pregnancy by artificial insemination, Indianapolis Zoo, 450–451

training, Knoxville Zoo, 110–111

Lutra lutra, new enclosure, Thoiry Zoo, 509–510

Lycaon pictus,

adverse effect of lions, 234

breeding, Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, 46–47

conservation, southern Africa, 94–95

environmental enrichment, Philadelphia Zoo, 250

Macaca silenus, experimental group encounters, German Primate Centre, 185–186

Macaque, lion-tailed, see Macaca silenus

Macaw, hyacinth, see Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus

Mace, Georgina, awarded O.B.E., 103

Magnetic Hill Zoo, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, 415–416

Magpie, long-tailed green, see Cissa chinensis

Mallinson, Jeremy, awarded O.B.E., 103

Mandrill, see Mandrillus sphinx

Mandrillus sphinx, first captive breeding, 1937, Chester Zoo, 30

Margay, see Leopardus wiedi

Marwell Zoo, U.K.,

annual report 1997, 235–240

retirement of founder, John Knowles, 111–112

rodents, 452–453

Melbourne Zoo, Victoria, Australia,

breeding, striped legless lizard, 243

breeding, twist-neck turtle, 453

mixed exhibit, gorilla and De Brazza's monkey, 52–53

Metro Washington Park Zoo, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., birth, black rhino, 53

Mink, European, see Mustela lutreola

Mixed exhibit,

gorilla and De Brazza's monkey, Melbourne Zoo, 52–53

lemurs (four spp.), Dallas Zoo, 254–255

maned wolf and South American tapir, Audubon Zoo, 59

ring-tailed and ruffed lemurs, Monkey World, 112

water vole and grey squirrel, Witton Country Park, 124

white rhino and cheetah, Boras Zoo, 502

Monitor, green tree, see Varanus prasinus

Monkey, De Brazza's, see Cercopithecus neglectus; squirrel, see Saimiri sciureus; woolly, see Lagothrix lagothricha

Monkey World, Dorset, U.K.,

attempted chimpanzee rescue, Turkey, 317

chimpanzee rescue, Spain, 112

mixed exhibit, ring-tailed and ruffed lemurs, 112

woolly monkey, 112, 389

Monrovia Zoo, Liberia, 504

Monterey Bay Aquarium, California, U.S.A., breeding, Pacific bonito, 53

Moody Gardens, Galveston, Texas, U.S.A., egg-collecting expedition, king penguin, South Georgia, 487–494

Moose, see Alces alces

Moscow Zoo, Russia, 112–113

Mulhouse Zoo, France, breeding successes, 1997, 53–54

Mustela lutreola,

off-exhibit breeding facility, Thoiry Zoo, 510

Tallinn Zoo, 319–320

Mustela nigripes, destruction of parasites after capture, 501

Mustelus mustelus, albino, Scheveningen Sea Life Centre, 58

Myadestes palmeri, breeding, Peregrine Fund (Keauhou Bird Conservation Center), 435–436

Myiophoneus caeruleus, husbandry guidelines, 123

Mynah, Bali, see Leucopsar rothschildi

Myrmecophaga tridactyla, breeding, Santa Barbara Zoo, 60

Nagoya Higashiyama Zoo, Japan, breeding, green-and-black and Amazonian poison-arrow frogs, 243–244

Naples Aquarium, Italy, 133–139

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

breeding, Speke's gazelle, 393

`Waterworld' exhibit, 113–115

Neofelis nebulosa, Glasgow Zoo, 125–126

New Jersey State Aquarium, Camden, New Jersey, U.S.A., breeding, goby spp., 54

Nomenclature, zoological, 70, 154–155

North Carolina Aquarium, Fort Fisher, North Carolina, U.S.A.,

breeding, northern pipefish, 115

breeding, yellow stingray, 115

North Carolina Zoo, Asheboro, North Carolina, U.S.A., breeding, Cape Fear shiner, 453–454

Notropis mekistocholas, breeding, North Carolina Zoo, 453–454

Nycticebus pygmaeus, reproductive research, San Diego CRES, 166

Ocelot, see Leopardus pardalis

Odobenus rosmarus, Brookfield Zoo, 104–105

Odour, possible uses in animal husbandry, 365–366

Ohrada Zoo, Hluboka nad Vltavou, Czech Republic, breeding, curl-crested aracari, 115–116

Okapi, see Okapia johnstoni

Okapia johnstoni,

breeding, Marwell Zoo, 235

breeding, White Oak Conservation Center, 248

Old House Bird Gardens Breeding Centre, Berkshire, U.K., presents turaco and curassow collection to Birdworld, 61

Olfactory enrichment, Asian elephant, 285–290

Omani Mammal Breeding Centre, Bait al Barakah, Oman, fencing for Arabian gazelle, 82–85

Orana Park Wildlife Trust, Christchurch, New Zealand, young sired by male giraffe under three years old, 323–324

Orang-utan, see Pongo pygmaeus

Oriole, Montserrat, see Icterus dominicensis oberi

Oryx, scimitar-horned, see O. dammah

Oryx dammah,

captive management, 237

release, Tunisia, 238–239

Osteolaemus tetraspis, breeding, Bristol Zoo, 502

Ostrich, see Struthio camelus

Otocolobus manul, toxoplasmosis, Denver Zoo, 444–445

Otter, European, see Lutra lutra

Ovibos moschatus, parasite infection, Berne Animal Park, 385

Ox, musk, see Ovibos moschatus

Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis, Phoenix Zoo, 54

Paignton Zoo, U.K.,

breeding, hooded parrot, 245

new desert exhibit, 245

new gorilla and orang-utan enclosures, 390

white rhino, 116

Palinurus vulgaris, albino, Timmendorfer Strand Sea Life Centre, 58

Pan paniscus, in situ research project, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, 435

Pan troglodytes,

attempted rescue from Turkey, Monkey World, 317

environmental enrichment, 464

rescue from Spain, Monkey World, 112

Panda, giant, see Ailuropoda melanoleuca

Panthera onca, wild-born, Jacksonville Zoo, 504

Panthera pardus,

deaths from spongiform encephalopathy, Safari de Panouse, 59

escape from Indian zoo, 60

Panthera pardus orientalis,

breeding, Prague Zoo, 59

conservation in situ, 97–98

Panthera tigris, conservation, 376

Panthera tigris altaica, breeding, Indianapolis Zoo, 511

Panthera tigris amoyensis, captive management, 167–168

Papio anubis, free-living on Spanish ranch, 68

Papio cynocephalus, in situ study by Brookfield Zoo, Kenya, 173–175

Paradisaea raggiana, Rainforest Habitat, 55

Parakeet, echo, see Psittacula echo

Parasites, possible importance of conserving, 501

Parco Natura Viva, Bussolengo, Italy, breeding, Indian king vulture, 116–117

Paris Zoo (Vincennes), France,

birth to six-year-old Asian cow elephant (1990), 117

breeding, Asian elephant, 324

death, 52-year-old Asian bull elephant, 117

Parque de la Naturaleza de Cabarceno, Spain, breeding, African elephant, 317–318

Parrot, hawk-headed, see Deroptyus accipitrinus; hooded, see Psephotus chrysopterygius dissimilis

Parrots,

eating soil, 230–231, 367

foster-rearing, Loro Parque, 181

Partula turgida, disease responsible for death of last specimens, 501

Passeio Publico Zoo, Curitiba, Brazil, 197

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Maryland, U.S.A., recovery plan, Mississippi sandhill crane, 164–165

Peafowl, Congo, see Afropavo congensis

Pelecanus crispus, Tallinn Zoo, 57

Pelecanus onocrotalus, breeding, Tallinn Zoo, 57

Pelecanus rufescens, breeding, Réserve Africaine de Sigean, 390–391

Pelican, Dalmatian, see Pelecanus crispus; (great or eastern) white, see P. onocrotalus; pink-backed, see P. rufescens

Penguin, king, see Aptenodytes patagonicus

Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, U.S.A.,

avian conservation work, 39–41, 435–436

breeding and reintroduction, harpy eagle, 373–374

captive breeding, Hawaiian crow, 183

Perth Zoo, Western Australia,

breeding, silvery gibbon, 324

breeding and release, dibbler, 318

release, chuditch, 318

Pheasant, Edwards's, see Lophura edwardsi

Philadelphia Zoo, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., environmental enrichment, African wild dog, 250

Philomachus pugnax, Rheine Zoo, 327

Phoenicopterus chilensis,

breeding, San Antonio Zoo, 120

husbandry and breeding, Rheine Zoo, 406–413

pair-formation, Amersfoort Zoo, 325–326

Phoenicopterus r. ruber, breeding, Copenhagen Zoo, 177–178

Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, U.S.A.,

Kanab amber snail, 54

Ramsey Canyon leopard frog, 54

Pig, Bornean bearded, see Sus b. barbatus; Indo-Chinese warty, see S. bucculentus

Pigeons, see Columba spp.

Pingtung Rescue Center for Endangered Wild Animals, Taiwan, 71–77

Pipefish, northern, see Syngnathus fuscus

Pistoia Zoological Garden, Italy, 117–118

Pittsburgh Zoo, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.,

breeding, gorilla, 122

propagation, corals, 248–249

Platemys platycephala, breeding, Melbourne Zoo, 453

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), sexing birds, 514–515

Memphis Zoo, Tennessee, U.S.A., incubation temperature and feeding regimen, African tarantula, 515

Pongo pygmaeus,

40-year-old male, Aalborg Zoo, 172

new enclosure, Paignton Zoo, 390

Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, U.K.,

annual report 1996–1997, 44–49

breeding, Asian elephant, 511

Possum, Leadbeater's, see Gymnobelideus leadbeateri

Poznan Zoo, Poland, breeding, Leadbeater's possum, 118

Prague Zoo, Czech Republic,

breeding, Amur leopard, 59

breeding, caiman lizard, 505

breeding, green tree monitor, 118–119

Prairie chicken, Attwater's, see Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

Presbytis melalophos, Howletts Wild Animal Park, 112

Primates,

captive welfare, 233–234

control of zoo populations, 396

environmental enrichment feeder boxes, Lion Country Safari, 388–389

feeding and enrichment, 397–398

Italian zoos, 278–284

Old World, new taxa, 230

Psephotus chrysopterygius dissimilis, breeding, Paignton Zoo, 245

Pseudechis papuanus, captive-breeding programme, 447

Psittacula echo, release, Mauritius, 228

Psophia crepitans, breeding, Gladys Porter Zoo, 182

Pterapogon kauderni, breeding, Columbus Zoo, 177

Pterinochilus murinus, incubation temperature and feeding regimen, Memphis Zoo, 515

Pteroglossus beauharnaesii, breeding, Ohrada Zoo, 115–116

Ptilinopus roseicapilla, collection from wild for AZA project, 167

Puaiohi, see Myadestes palmeri

Pygathrix nemaeus cinereus, 207, 230

Quistococha Zoo, Iquitos, Peru, 245–247

Rabb, George, awarded Silver Medal, Zoological Society of London, 510

Rail, Guam, see Gallirallus owstoni

Rainforest Habitat, Lae, Papua New Guinea, Raggi's and Princess Stephanie's birds of paradise, 55

Rana subaquavocalis, Phoenix Zoo, 54

Ranua Wildlife Park, Finland, breeding, wild boar, 510

Raptors,

in Japanese zoos, 11–20

Recurvirostra avosetta, breeding, Rheine Zoo, 391

Redshank, see Tringa tolanus

Reintroduction or release,

Attwater's prairie chicken, Texas, 227

Bali mynah, 459–460

chuditch, Western Australia, 318

dibbler, Western Australia, 318

echo parakeet, Mauritius, 228

four-lined snake, Croatia, 101

green-and-golden bell frog, Australia, 247

harpy eagle, Panama, 373–374

Mallorcan midwife toad, 59–60

Mauritius kestrel, 163–164

Mississippi sandhill crane, 164–165

red-crowned and white-naped cranes, Russia, 389–390

scimitar-horned oryx, Tunisia, 238–239

Reptiles, California, attacks by introduced South American ants, 123

Rescue and rehabilitation,

big cats, U.S.A., 121–122

chimpanzees, Spain and Turkey, 112, 317

manatee, 458

wild animals, Taiwan, 71–77

Réserve Africaine de Sigean, France, breeding, pink-backed pelican, 390–391

Rheine Zoo, Germany,

annual report 1997, 169–171

breeding, ruff, 327, 392

breeding, waders, 391–392

husbandry and breeding, Chilean flamingo, 406–413

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

Rhinoceros unicornis,

breeding in captivity, 261–276

conservation, Assam, India, 303–304

tiger predation, Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India, 227

Ridgeway Trust for Endangered Cats, U.K., breeding, margay, 55–56, 318–319

Rio de Janeiro Zoo, Brazil, 198–200

Rio Grande Zoo, New Mexico, U.S.A., jellyfish exhibit, 56–57

Riverbanks Zoo, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A., 119–120, 247, 319, 454

breeding, toucans, 454

Rode Bird Gardens, Bath, Somerset, U.K., new enclosure, cassowary, 324

Rodents, Marwell Zoo, 452–453

Rotterdam Zoo, the Netherlands, annual report 1997, 310–313

Ruff, see Philomachus pugnax

Safari de Panouse, France, death of leopards from spongiform encephalopathy, 59

Saguinus bicolor, breeding, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, 183

Saguinus oedipus,

free-ranging, Adelaide Zoo, 241

mating strategies, 146–149

Saimiri sciureus,

orphan adopted by golden-headed lion tamarin, Bramble Park Zoo, 60

taxonomy, 330

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

breeding by artificial insemination, banteng, 505

new exhibit, lories and lorikeets, 506

Salmonier Nature Park, Holyrood, Newfoundland, Canada, 414–415

Salzburg Zoo, Austria, environmental enrichment, brown bear, 328

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

breeding, buff-crested bustard, 120

breeding, Chilean flamingo, 120

breeding, northern helmeted curassow, 120

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

annual report 1997, 382–384

avian conservation work, 39–41

chromosomal study, hirola, 103

reproductive research, pygmy loris, 166

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

breeding, Bornean bearded pig, 59

breeding and reintroduction, harpy eagle, 373–374

Lord Derby's eland, 506–508

San Diego, Zoological Society of, annual report 1997, 381–384

Santa Barbara Zoo, California, U.S.A.,

breeding, giant anteater, 60

two-toed sloth exhibit, 183

Sanzinia madagascariensis, breeding, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, 180

São Paulo Zoo, Brazil, 191–193

Sarcogyps calvus, breeding, Parco Natura Viva, 116–117

Sarda chiliensis, breeding, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 53

Sargento Prata Zoo, Fortaleza, Brazil, 193

Scheveningen Sea Life Centre, albino smooth hound (shark), 58

Schönbrunn Zoo, Vienna, Austria,

breeding and reintroduction, four-lined snake, Croatia, 101

new African elephant enclosure, 66

new forest nature trail, 508–509

Sciurus carolinensis, mixed exhibit with water vole, Witton Country Park, 124

Scopus umbretta, breeding, Ueno Zoo, 78–80

Sea lion, Californian, see Zalophus californianus

Shark, grey nurse, see Carcharias taurus; smooth hound, see Mustelus mustelus

Shiner, Cape Fear, see Notropis mekistocholas

Skink, robust, see Cyclodina alani

Sloth, two-toed, see Choloepus didactylus

Snail, Kanab amber, see Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis

Snake, four-lined, see Elaphe quatuorlineata; Papuan black, see Pseudechis papuanus

Soil, eating, 230–231, 367

Squirrel, grey, see Sciurus carolinensis

Stingray, yellow, see Urolophus jamaicensis

Struthio camelus, use of rabbits in rearing chicks, 122

Surplus animals, disposal, 130, 150–152, 296–298, 334, 497–498

Sus b. barbatus, breeding, San Diego Zoo, 59

Sus bucculentus, rediscovered in Laos, 42

Sus scrofa, breeding, Ranua Wildlife Park, 510

Swallow, white-browed wood, see Artamus superciliosus

Syngnathus fuscus, breeding, North Carolina Aquarium, 115

Takin, golden, see Budorcas taxicolor bedfordi; Mishmi, see Budorcas t. taxicolor

Tallinn Zoo, Estonia,

breeding, Dalmatian and white pelicans, 57

European mink, 319–320

Tama Zoo, Tokyo, Japan,

breeding, golden takin, 120

breeding, Siberian white crane, 320

Tamarin, cotton-top, see Saguinus oedipus; golden lion, see Leontopithecus rosalia; golden-headed lion, see L. chrysomelas; pied, see Saguinus bicolor

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

Tapirus bairdii, conservation, Costa Rica, 99–101

Tapirus indicus, Taronga Zoo, 455–456

Tapirus pinchaque, breeding, Los Angeles Zoo, 123

Tapirus terrestris, mixed exhibit with maned wolf, Audubon Zoo, 59

Tarantula, African, see Pterinochilus murinus

Taronga Zoo, Sydney, Australia,

breeding, North Island brown kiwi, 122

captive-breeding and release, green-and-golden bell frog, 247

Malayan tapir, 455–456

Taurotragus derbianus, San Diego Zoo, 506–508

Teal, Madagascar, see Anas bernieri

Television programmes, zoo-based, 466

Temperature, non-invasive reading, 190, 212–219, 365

Tennessee Aquarium, Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S.A., turtle and tortoise exhibit, 181–182

Terrapin, Malaysian painted, see Callagur borneoensis

Thalarctos maritimus,

diet, 460–461

raft as environmental enrichment, Calgary Zoo, 386

Thaumatibis gigantea, discovered in Laos, 97

Thoiry Zoo, France,

brown bear, 510

off-exhibit breeding facility, European mink, 510

new enclosure, European otter, 509–510

new reptile house, 510

Thrush, Himalayan blue whistling, see Myiophoneus caeruleus

Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, Germany,

annual report 1997, 313

new enclosure, snow leopard, 247

quintuplets, black-and-white ruffed lemur, 247

stillbirths, Asian elephant, 121, 456

tufted deer, 57–58

Tiger, see Panthera tigris; Amur (Siberian), see P. t. altaica; Chinese, see P. t. amoyensis

Tiger Haven, Kingston, Tennessee, U.S.A., big cat rescue centre, 121–122

Timmendorfer Strand Sea Life Centre, Germany, albino spiny lobster, 58

Toad, Mallorcan midwife, see Alytes muletensis

Tortoise, African spurred, see Geochelone sulcata; Galapagos giant, see G. elephantopus; Seychelles giant, see Dipsochelys spp.

Tortoises, exhibit, Tennessee Aquarium, 181–182

Trachypithecus auratus, Howletts Wild Animal Park, 44–45

Tracy Aviary, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., breeding, southern ground hornbill, 511

Tragelaphus eurycerus, conditioning for milk collection, Denver Zoo, 252–253

Tragelaphus scriptus, breeding, Gladys Porter Zoo, 60

Tragopan, Blyth's, see Tragopan blythii

Tragopan blythii, breeding by artificial insemination, Clères Zoo, 503

Tremarctos ornatus,

CERZA, 105

new exhibit, Zürich Zoo, 291–293

Tringa tolanus, breeding, Rheine Zoo, 391

Trumpeter, grey-winged, see Psophia crepitans

Turacos,

captive census, 102

presented to Birdworld, 61

Turtle, twist-neck, see Platemys platycephala

Turtles,

exhibit, Tennessee Aquarium, 181–182

research and conservation project, Bermuda Aquarium, 511

Twycross Zoo, U.K., breeding, Asian elephant, 511

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri, release, Texas, 227

Ueno Zoo, Tokyo, Japan, breeding, hammerkop, 78–80

Uncia uncia,

conservation in situ, 38–39

new enclosure, Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, 247

Underwater World Mooloolaba, Queensland, Australia, breeding, grey nurse shark, 58–59

Upper Clements Wildlife Park, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, Canada, 418–419

Urolophus jamaicensis, breeding, North Carolina Aquarium, 115

Ursus arctos,

environmental enrichment, Salzburg Zoo, 328

Thoiry Zoo, 510

Varanus prasinus, breeding, Prague Zoo, 118–119

Varecia variegata,

encouraging natural feeding behaviour, Chester Zoo, 513–514

quintuplets, Tierpark Berlin-Friedrichsfelde, 247

Viper, Gabon, see Bitis gabonica

Vole, water, see Arvicola terrestris

Vultur gryphus,

breeding, Gdansk Zoo, 179

breeding, Krakow Zoo, 512

longevity, Rome Zoo, 454–455

Vulture, Indian king, see Sarcogyps calvus

Waders, breeding, Rheine Zoo, 391–392

Waldrapp, see Geronticus eremita

Walrus, see Odobenus rosmarus

Wassenaar Wildlife Breeding Centre, the Netherlands,

breeding, Asian golden cat, 392–393

fostering, cheetah, 320–322

Waterfowl, new exhibit, Zürich Zoo, 292–293

Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, U.K., Asian elephant, 122

White Oak Conservation Center, Yulee, Florida, U.S.A.,

breeding, okapi, 248

recovery plan, Mississippi sandhill crane, 164–165

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Martin Mere, U.K., 393

Wildlife World Zoo, Litchfield Park, Arizona, U.S.A., 322–323

Wissel Zoo, The Netherlands, 182

Witton Country Park, mixed exhibit, water vole and grey squirrel, 124

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

Wuppertal Zoo, Germany, breeding, New Guinea crocodile, 511–512

Yemen, captive animals, 22–25, 155–156

Zalophus californianus, breeding, Chessington Zoo, 448

Zambezi Nature Sanctuary, Zimbabwe, 456–458

Zebra, Grevy's, see Equus grevyi

Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, in situ research project, bonobo, 435

Zoos,

Brazilian, 191–201

Canadian, 414–421

education, history, 422–426

history and development, 140–145, 258–260

Italian, primates, 278–284

television programmes, 466

Zürich Zoo,

annual report 1997, 313–314

breeding and research, Galapagos giant tortoise, 166–167

new exhibit, spectacled bear, 291–293

new exhibit, waterfowl, 292–293