animal collections in brazilian zoological parks

C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS I92

{ H I . ZOO Yb. (1988) 27: 192-216 0 The Zoological Society of London

Animal collections in Brazilian zoological parks J IM ELLIS’ & GEORGEANN ELLIS Zoological Consultant, 4017 NW 33rd Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32606, U S A

In the course of our research in 1984 into the status of South American zoological parks it became evident that, other than information readily available in the International Zoo Yearbook volumes, little was known regarding zoo activities and collections in this region of the world. Many of the data reviewed here were collected between 1984 and 1986 in Brazil which at that time was considered to be the country with the largest number of zoological parks in Latin America. In the face of predictions such as that of Caufield (1984), who suggests that Brazil will lose as much as 8% of its rainforests by the year 2000, and of Fearnside (1984) who predicts that Brazilian states such as the Mato Grosso, Rondonia and Acre will be deforested by the years 1989, 1990 and 1993, respectively, captive management programmes become criti- cally important in the overall picture of species and habitat management.

Foose ef al. (1985), in discussing the conservation of animal genetic resources in the face of habitat loss and the possible extinction of species in tropical forests, suggest that ‘many taxa nowadays considered secure in in situ reserves are actually in plain jeopardy and should already be under management’. Seal ( 1 985) further emphasises the need for management by stating that for these species we must ‘preserve options for the next generation’. He goes on to suggest that ‘virtually all the reserves and game parks of the world are no more satisfactory for long-term survival of large species than are zoological parks; they are too small’. We must therefore look for new management concepts and principles. In looking at the components

of the ‘new’ captive breeding strategies Seal (1985) lists the following as key elements: ‘ I . what is the capacity of zoos? 2 . how do we choose species for captive breeding programs? 3. how many individuals or founders are necessary to represent adequately the population or species? 4. what population size must we maintain for a species? 5. how will we manage the breeding (genetics) and demography (age and sex structure) of the captive population? 6. under what circumstances will exchange between wild and captive populations or return of captives to free- ranging populations occur? 7. when can an organized captive preservation or propagation program be terminated?’

It is in this context that captive populations of animals or species outside the highly industrialised nations of the world, in countries such as Brazil, should be considered. To be able to answer the above questions, and to formulate propagation plans, basic information should first be obtained on the status of facilities, collections and available resources. Brazil would appear to be an appropriate starting point for the study of native species in captive propagation programmes since Central and South America contains the largest remaining patch of tropical rainforest (57% of the world’s total rainforest) and Brazil has the largest single block within a South American country (42% of the world’s total) (Pires & Prance, 1978; Caufield, 1984; Myers, 1984).

Prior to proceeding with the actual

CONSERVATION SCIENCE A N D ZOOS 193

SUBJECT AUTHOR@) MAIN TOPIC

Amazonian fauna

Nutrition Pipa pipa Cygnus melanocoryphus Sarcoramphus papa Ara spp Rupicola spp Primates

Callitrichidae

Alouatta caraya Cyclopes sp Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris Agouri (= Cuniculus) paca Panthera onca

Tapirus terrestris Tayassu tajacu

Blastocerus dichotomus

Neto, 1973a, 1973b

Leal, 1976 Pineda & Berger, 1979 Widholzer & Voss, 1978 Bohrer, 1979 Pinto da Silveira, 1975 Lemos, 1982 Becker, 1976; Coimbra-Filho,

1982; Faklen er al., 1983

Coimbra-Filho & Maia, 1977; Thiago de Mello, 1981

Lindbergh & Santini, 1984 Best & Harada, 1984 Piccinini et al., 1971 Francisco, 1984 Leal, 1973a, b; Filho et al., 1978

Wallauer, 1973 Francisco, unpubl.; Vicente da

Autuori, 1972 Silva et al., unpubl.

breeding for food production; review of captive breeding of native species.

zoo diets. general biology. captive breeding. breeding and hatching. hybridism. captive breeding notes. primate colonies; conservation

Brazilian spp; blood values of captive spp.

establishing marmoset colony. diets for captive marmosets;

reintroduction. feeding habits. breeding programme. behaviour, captive management breeding behaviour; effect of

gonadotrophin on sperm. observ. on captive breeding. captive management; capture.

biological and growth data.

Table 1. Brazilian literature covering the management of native species in captivity.

inventory data it would seem useful to review the available Brazilian literature on the subject of captive maintenance and breeding. Table 1 reviews readily accessible published material on native birds, mammals and one amphibian species (none is available on reptiles as yet). With regard to avian wildlife, a journal of a Brazilian ornithological society entitled SOM publishes a number of general papers on a monthly basis. Some of the pertinent titles published in the conference proceedings of the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil are listed in Table 2. A number of articles published in these proceedings, not cited here because of their extreme brevity and generality, revolve around other aspects of zoo management such as veterinary care, educational programmes, etc. Appendix 1 lists the states and towns in which zoos are found in Brazil. Ellis (1987) presents further tabulations of the families of reptiles, birds and mammals maintained in these zoos. Although no

detailed information was available on the licensed private sector breeders, the Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal (IBDF) provided us with a list of those facilities which were registered with them (Appendix 2). Avian species, especially cracids, psittacines, waterfowl and game birds appear to be of major interest in the private sector although most of those registered do not list the species with which they are working. Finally, a common concern amongst all zoological park administrators and staff within Brazil is the lack of basic zoo and exotic animal management literature in the country and in their native language of Portuguese. Net0 (1973b) provides an excellent listing in Portuguese of animals bred in Brazilian facilities (including private ones) from the early 1900s up to 1973. Almost all breeding appears to have taken place in the southern regions with Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro zoos dominating the lists, particularly with regard to birds and mammals. There is

194 CONSERVATION S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS

. I r r i ururuunu

-ZLTHOR(SI MAIN I'OPIC

Penachioni & Lucia da Silveira,

Lucia da Silveira. 1986 Guix cr ul., 1981 Molina. 1986 Lucia da Silveira & Andre, 1986 Widholzer & Melo. 1986 Nunes ct 111.. 1986 Lucia da Silveira & Pais. 1983;

Pires da Silva, 1986: Nunes &

Silva. 1986 Lucia da Silveira. 1983 Favaretto. 1981 Fedullo & Simon. 1986 Dias. 1986 Dias. 1986 Rodrigues & Fontes. 1986 Fedullo C I a/.. 1981 Queiroz & Lobo. 1986 Santos & da Costa, 1981 Leal. 1986 Geiger, 1983 Filho & Cubas, 1986 Costa de Andrada. 1986 Nunes & Puglia. 1983b: Carvalho.

1986: Diniz & Deutsch, 1986: Nunes & Puglia. 1986

1986

Pais & Lucia da Silveira, 1983

Puglia. 1983a

Deutsch, 1983b Nunes & Puglia. 1983c

Lima & Lima, 1983 Deutsch. 1983a Puglia & Yunes, 1983

breeding, maintenance

hatching, growth. breeding behaviour. egg laying, incubation, hatching. fungal and bacterial shell lesions. reintroduction. breeding. maintenance, breeding; rearing of

breeding.

breeding. hatching. beak restoration. beak restoration. breeding. breeding. management. osteofibrosarcoma. breeding. toxoplasmosis. diet. management. captive maintenance. capture, transport. occurrence of Babesiu sp; urinary

hatchlings.

occurrence of Cupilluri sp; breeding and hand-rearing; breeding.

behaviour. birth observations. breeding, hatching, growth. melanism and breeding. breeding.

Table 2. Articles which deal with captive breeding or management of native Brazilian species, selected from the conference proceedings of the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil 1981-1986.

one additional citation which reports a reptile breeding, Eunectes murinus, at Sao Paulo (Belluomini & Veinert, 1967) but otherwise Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi in Belem, Para, is listed by Net0 (1973b) as being particularly successful with reptiles: birds were bred in large numbers of prikate facilities as well as public ones, with the Rio Grande do Sul Zoo appearing to be one of the most successful. With regard to mammals, the zoos of special note are Rio Grande do Sul and Brasilia. Sadly, no update is available. The lack of distribution and interchange with respect to foreign

publications is also a negative factor in the development of management programmes.

ZOO INVENTORIES One of the objectives of this paper is to review the role of Brazilian zoological parks as propagation centres for native wildlife. Since the early 1980s the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil (SZB), with headquarters at Sorocaba in the state of Sao Paulo, has been attempting to maintain a series of yearly inventories for the birds, mammals and reptiles maintained in Brazilian zoos (Zoologico

C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS I95

de Belo Horizonte, 1982, 1983; Zoologico de Sao Paulo, 1983, 1985; Lucia de Silveira & Costa de Andrada, 1984). These inventories have been compiled by staff at various zoos, principally the main city zoos of Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro. They include all native as well as foreign (exotic) fauna. For the purpose of this review exotic fauna are considered to be species that do not have a natural distribution in South America. Native fauna have been defined as species whose range and normal distribution includes the continent of South America.

The following review of the SZB inventories establishes the current position of native species in relation to the species being exhibited and bred. Given the fact that Brazil lies in one of the richest faunal regions of South America, the opportunity exists to look at the relationship between populations of native and exotic species in zoos in order to attempt to determine the future direction that may be implied for these collections.

The inventories list the scientific and vernacular name of each species held, the names of the zoos where it is housed, sex ratios, breeding/mortality data and information on animals acquired (‘incorporados’) and those surplused (‘descardato’) in that they have been moved elsewhere, euthanased or otherwise transferred. These data have not been analysed locally, as far as we are aware, but apparently the inventories do serve the purpose of stimulating exchanges between zoos. A major problem when reviewing the data is the lack of information on the source of the animals incorporated into a collection, or of those considered surplus. Similarly, the birth data do not indicate the place of conception and individuals may be entering the zoo already gravid, giving birth or laying eggs a short time afterwards. Finally, a major difficulty occurs with the death data in that from our experience it would appear likely that

many facilities do not report these at all or the figure given may be inaccurate. To be of value correct death data, if reported, would have to identify whether the animal was from the wild or was a newborn/young born in captivity and should also state how long an animal had been maintained in a collection. Another important modifier of the data is the range that exists in quality of reporting. Facilities situated further from the large urban centres, expecially the state and city of Sao Paulo, did not maintain accurate daily records and to a large degree animal counts in the collections were listed simply in single figures without differentiation of sex. In addition, many of the inventories were based on the common or vernacular names of the animals, again more so in the outer regions of the country. These vernacular names varied tremendously from one area to another for a number of species and often were part of the indigenous culture of the region. This was particularly noticeable in the case of birds. For the cracids, for example, ‘mutum’ was applied to all the individuals of the genus or even family; in such cases it is impossible to make good use of the information. The following summarises the breeding data from the reptile, bird and mammal SZB census reports.

REPTILES The total figures for reptiles on exhibit in 1983 were: 14 families, 29 genera and 48 species; of the species, 46 were native and two were exotic. The total number of species bred was ten (20% of all species exhibited) and the total number which had deposited eggs was 23 (47% of all species exhibited). These data are based on the reptile census compiled by the SZB for Brazilian collections (Lucia da Silveira & Costa de Andrada, 1984). Table 3 shows breeding results for those species with populations of 50 or 100 or more since they seem to be showing some measure of success. Ellis (1 987) presents breeding data in more detail and also

I96 CONSERVATION SClENCE A N D ZOOS

P O P I 1 4 T l O h T V T L 1983

hO ZOOS NO. ZOOS REPORT COPULATION

NO. ZOOS REPORT EGtiS LAID

a.o.60 3.2.45 2.1.55

132.196.95 342.275.42 36.64

7.10.119 46.71.49 32.29.1 16 36.20.83 33.51.15 12.10.81

1 5

12

12 17 14 I I I I 6

18

11 ia

1 2

Table 3. Reptile species with populations of 50 or 100 or more individuals in 21 Brazilian zoos, based on the 1983 reptile census of the Saciedade Zoologico do Brad (Lucia da Silveira & Costa de Andrada, 1984). No exotic species currently have population numbers reaching even 50 individuals.

reviews the taxonomic nomenclature and the vernacular names used for the species held. The number of collections holding reptiles are concentrated in the southeast, mainly in the Sao Paulo region, as is also the case for birds and mammals. At 21 the number of zoos which report having reptiles on exhibit is small. Only four species listed on CITES Appendix 1 (Gray-Schofield, 1983) are held, of which only Caiman iatirostris has a large population (over 100). All but two of the species held are native. The breeding data are questionable because they relate only to egg-laying and copulation and give no indication regarding the survival of eggs or offspring. No data o n surpluses or newly acquired animals are reported.

BIRDS The avian data are based on the years 1980 and 1981, reported in the 1981 and 1982 censuses (Zoologico de Belo Horizonte, 1982, 1983). Avian numbers of specimens and species greatly outnumber the mammals and reptiles on exhibit. The total figures for birds on exhibit in 198011981 were: 56 families, 246 genera and 430 species; 301 (70%) of the species were native and 129 (30%) were exotic.

The total number of species bred was 90 (20% of those held), of which 43 (47%) were exotic. Altogether 9038 individuals were held.

As mentioned earlier, the diversity in vernacular names for avian species from one region to another is particularly great. The SZB census, being based on scientific names first and foremost, represents an effort to formalise the nomenclature used.

The way in which the census data are presented makes it difficult to determine hatching rates and the survival of offspring. Therefore the data on hatching will be treated as though the figures listed are for eggs laid and successfully hatched. A major discrepancy exists between the 1981 and 1982 censuses in the listing given for the species totals held in Brazilian zoos at the end of 1980 or beginning of 1981. This is illustrated in Table 4 where the totals of CITES 1 species (as listed by Gray-Schofield, 1983) given in the 1981 census report for 31 December 1980 are listed next to the totals reported in the 1982 census for 1 January 198 1 (shown in parentheses). Essentially, these figures should be the same, since exactly the same facilities


SPECIES TOTAL 1980

BIRTHS TOTAL BIRTHS ZOOS 1980 1981 1981 1982

TOTAL 1982

ZOOS 1982

NATIVE Tinamus solitarius Harpia harpyja Falco peregrinm Ahurriu pipile Ahurria jacutinga Crux miiu tuherosa Crax hlumenhuchii Ara rubrogenys Aratinga guurouba Pyrrhura cruentata Pionopsitta pileata Amazona pretrei Amazona vinacea Pharomachrus mocinna

EXOTIC Siruthio camelus Ciconia ciconia Brania canadensis Colinus virginianus Lophophorus impeyanus Polyplectron emphanum Syrmaticus ellioti Psiiiacus erithacus

0.4 3.3.4

nl nl 0.1.1 1.3.4 2.3.1 0.0.1 0.0.16 0.0.5 10.7.1 1 0.1.3 1.1.4

nl

1 .0 0.0.1

2.2 1 .o 2.0 1 .o 0.0.7

nl

1.4(8.8.4) 0.6 4 3.3.3(4.4.3) 5

1.1 0.0.2 3.4.9(4.4.12)

3.6.4(3.5.8) 1 .0 3.3.1(4.5.1)

0.0.1 0.0.1 l(O.0.18) O.O.S(O.0.6) 11.8.7(18.16.7) 0.1.3 1.1.4( 1.1.5) 0.1

1.0(2.0) 0.0. I 0.0.5

0.0.9 1.1.4 1 .0 2.0 1 .o 1.1.6

0.0.2 4 6

1.1 2 1 3 3 7 1

1.1 4

10.9.8 5.6.2 0.0.1 1.1 2.4. I2 3.4.4 6.6.1 0.0.10 0.0.20 0.0.3 17.17.2 0.1.2 4.4.3 1 .o

2.0 0.0.1 0.0.5 1.3 1 .o 1 .0 1 .o 1.1.6

I I 1 1 6 8 4 2 5 3 8 1 5 1

2 I 1 1 1 1 I 4

nl = not listed in census

Table 4. Avian species listed on CITES Appendix 1 (Gray-Schofield, 1983) held in Brazilian zoos, based on the SZB avian censuses for 1980-1982 (Zoologico de Belo Horizonte, 1982, 1983). There are serious discrepancies in the totals reported for 1981 in the two censuses, as is obvious from the totals column for 1981. In this column the figures outside parentheses indicate the end-of-year total given in the 1981 census report as at 31 December 1980.The figures inside parentheses indicate the start-of-year total given in the 1982 census for 1 January 1981.

were said to be reporting, yet ten of the 22 species have conflicting totals.

Table 4 also shows the reproductive rate for CITES 1 species in Brazilian zoos; it is obvious that this can be characterised as non-existent for native as well as for exotic species. For species with populations of 50 or 100, however, this is not necessarily the case since all appear to have produced high numbers of offspring in 1980 and 1981 (Tables 5 and 6) . The figure of 100 in Table 6 is used because it is considered by some authors (Flesness, 1977; Pinder & Barkham, 1978; Gray- Schofield, 1983; Benirschke, 1985) as the minimum number of individuals required to maintain at least 50% or more of the genetic integrity within a captive population. All the above-mentioned

authors include as part of their discussion the assumption that the population in question is being managed as a whole and not by individual institutions. The figure of 50 (Table 5) was selected to indicate the species which have a potential for reaching population numbers of 100.

The greatest breeding activity seems to centre around the Anatidae, if both native and exotic species are included, and in fact during our visits in 1985 and 1986 there appeared to be a large private sector with interests in waterfowl and gamefowl. The list of surplus and acquired species includes all those reported as having populations of over 50 or over 100 individuals. In addition, the species with the highest numbers appear to be the ones with most individuals entering

I98 C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS

TOTtL BIRTHS 1014L BIRTHS I O T A 1 zoos 1980 I980 1981 1981 1982 1982

8.9.7 0.0.33 0.0.75 5.4.24 4.5.38 I9 8 . 3 7.6.44 6.9.10 17.12.6 0.0.30

0.0.7 1.1.25 3.4.63 1.5.34 0.0.4 I 5.5.30 1.1.19

0 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 15 0 0 6

1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 14

0 0 6

0 0 6

0 0 I

12.8.14( 16.14.20) 0.0.26( I . I .70) 0.0.85 7.8.55(6.5.34) 5.5.3 l(6.6.52)

16.10.22(12 16.21) 8.6.42 5.6.10( 12.12.26) 16. lS.lO(23.22.8) 7.7.51(7.7.61) 0.0.2(0.0.54) I . l.34( I . 1.36)

3.3.51(4.3.70)

0.0.39(5.1.69)

0.0.24(0.1.38)

1.1.25(2.2.43)

1.4.41( 1.4.62)

3.4.30(3.4.52)

0.0.38 0.0.6

0.0.29 0.0.7

0.02 2.2 0.0.1

0.0.4

0.0.3 0.0.2

11.15.40 0.0.57

nl 12.9.58 7.7.41

21.22.13 nl 13.15.31 27.24.3

7.7.55 0.0.68 1.1.89 2.2.47 3.3.64 2.2.68 0.0.85 1.1.52 0.0.50

10 6

6 6

10

14 20 6 5 6

14 11 10 10 10 9

I \ O I I(

r:l L'l7llI <l:rtlll/.Y 18.15.41 0.0.41 14.12.61(15.13.62) 0.0.28 20.17.66 10 'I l i \ t ' Y uIl,\l'r 7.5.2 1 . 1 9.6(15.14.28) 0.0.18 13.9.51 9 4 1 \ \plJ" \il 4.4.5 0.0.10 2.2.19(14.15.16) 12.5.42 31.26.14 5 \ I l , l p i i l c ~ u . Y i l i ~ l l l l l l r / ~ l ~ l t , \ 15.15.1 0.0.35 18.14.36 0.0.12 23.19.2 4

nl ~ not listed in ccnsus.

Table 5. Avian species with populations of 50 or more (but below 100) in Brazilian zoos in 1980, 1981 or 1982, based on the SZB avian censuses for 1980-1982 (Zoologico de Belo Horizonte, 1982, 1983). As in Table 4, the discrepancies between totals given for the same period in 1981 in the 1981 and 1982 censuses can be seen by comparing the figures inside and outside parentheses.

the surp1us:acquired transactions. The numbers of surplus birds appear to be of similar magnitude to that of the numbers of acquired birds, although there is a lack of accurate data on hatchings and deaths with which to compare these figures. A high proportion of species are entering zoos from the wild, in particular (both in numbers and variety) the passeriforms. anatids and psittacines.

The regional distributions of avian species in percentage terms are shown in Table 7 . The average number of zoos reporting in 1980 and 1981 was 23 , and by 1981 the representation of native breeding species had risen to an average of 4896 of the total number of species breeding, as opposed to 37% in 1980. The native avian species comprised c.80% of the bird collection's in 1982. Of the total,

11 YO were breeding and of those cSO% are native and 50% are exotic. Comparisons of success between states are difficult to make because most of the facilities outside the major capital cities did not report. The state of Sao Paulo has the highest number of zoos reporting and most of the northern regions have no facilities reporting. Comparison of the acquired versus the surplus or removed specimens indicates that c.80Y0 of the incoming birds in 1981, and ~ . 7 5 % of the surplus individuals, were native species. The zoos in the southeast had the highest representation of exotic species in its acquired and surplus listings.

Table 8 reviews the total number of individuals held in each of the reporting regions for reptiles, birds and mammals and shows that the southern area held


SPECIES TOTAL BIRTHS TOTAL 1980 1980 1981

BIRTHS TOTAL zoos 1981 1982 1982

NATIVE Rhea americana Dendrocygna bicolor Dendrocygna viduata Cairinu moschata Nerta peposaca Gallinula chloropus Ara ararauna Arnazona aestiva

EXOTIC Anser cygnoides Anas platyrhynchos Gallus gallus Pavo cristatus Numida meleagris Columba liviu Streptopelia decaocto Melopsit tacus undulatus

11.6.80 8 3.549 0.0.433 8.8.268 7.8.106 0.0.106 4.4.69

13.5.77

5.8.72 102.83.58

17.25.5 25.35.8

5.13.33 1.1.6 3.3.78 9.9.176

0.0.54 0.0.25 0.0.7 1.2.106

0.0.7

0.0.25 4.3.309 1.5.68 2.3.48 0.0.85 0.0.6 0.0.9 0.0.10

8.7.1 lO(21.21.109) 8.7.536(10.10.63 1) 2.2.434

12.12.298(30.27.314) 8.7.91(11.10.117) 0.0.107(0.0.115) 4.4.80(4.4.132)

17.8.82(15.16.115)

9.14.76(5.8.97)

14.22.33(41.73.23) 21.31 M(36.43.41)

2.7.156(3.10.126) 0.2.11(11.12.466) 9.12.49(7.10.122) 9.9.161

116.88.383(122.100.383)

0.0.57 0.0.48

ni 1.2.217 0.0.5

0.0.8 0.0.2

0.0.9 3.2.273

15.10 0.2.54 0.0.33 5.5.8 0.0.36

20.19.110 10.9.615

26.33.41 1 15.18.106 0.0.1 16 4.4.160

19.8.112

13.15.151 138.140.184 66.8 1 . 1 3 51.54.39 3.5.105

15.16.494 6.9.209

no data

14 11

10 9 7

19 18

11 12 8

17 11 5

12

nl = not listed in census

Table 6. Avian species with populations of 100 or more in Brazilian zoos, 1981, based on the SZB avian censuses for 1980-1982 (Zoologico de Belo Horizonte, 1982, 1983). As in Tables 4 and 5, the discrepancies between totals given in the 1981 and 1982 censuses for the same period in 1981 can be seen by comparing the figures inside and outside parentheses.

~ ~~

YEARiREGlON %TOTAL SP %TOTAL HATCHED %TOTAL DIED %TOTAL ACQ %TOTAL SURPL NATIVE (%NATIVE) (%NATIVE) NATIVE NATIVE

1980 Northeast 69 12(11) 25(50) 76 100 Centre-west 88 lO(71) 24(81) 86 75 Southeast 83 18(24) 34(68) 81 53 South 81 16(45) 34(73) 90 70

1981 Northeast 71 5(50) 34(58) 69 75 Centre-west 82 lO(50) 22(88) 88 83 Southeast 78 12(34) 22(68) 76 67 South 78 19(58) 33(80) 80 77

I982 Northeast 75 Centre-west 82 Southeast 78 South 78

Table 7. The native avian species held in zoological parks shown as a percentage of the total zoo population in different regions of Brazil from 1980-1982, also showing the percentage of the total number of species that was born and died (and what percentage of each of these was native) and the percentages of those which were acquired and surplused that were native.

200 C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS

RtOlOh 1980 iw I ~ D I C S TOTAL h4TIVF

RtPIILtS Northeast Centre-west Southeast South

BIRL)S

hor theds l 183 Centre-\best 358 Southeast 2120 South 2656

5317 -

M.!MMALS Nor th Northeast Centre-ucst Southeast South

~

148 305

1376 2210 4039

1981 NO I ~ D I V S l O l A L luA11Vt

~ ~~~

408 409

4271

8689 @J

~~

252 334

271h 2749 605 1 -

1982 NO I N D ~ V S 1983 NO I N D I V S 1984 NO I N D I V S TOTAL hATiVE TOTAL NATIVE TOTAL NATIVE

~~ ~~~~

390 437

4714

9038 3497

88 185 360

2377 762

3772

123 123 72 72

1764 1723 439 439

2398 2351 - -

246 334

2883

5837 2374

88 1 so 237

1667 484

2626

182 182 228 167 241 138

2600 1854 777 563

4028 2-4

Table 8. Total number of individual specimens of reptiles, birds and mammals held in zoos in the different regions of Brazil, based on the SZB censuses (Zoologico de Be10 Horizonte, 1982, 1983; Zoologico de Sao Paulo, 1983, 1985; Lucia da Silveira & Costa de Andrada, 1984).

50% of the total number of avian specimens in 1980, followed by the southeast with c.40%. By the start of 1982 the southeast held approximately 52% and the south 39% of the total avian specimens in zoo collections. Interestingly, the more highly industrialised states of southern Brazil have the highest numbers of zoos and captive birds. This pattern is seen with all other species and demonstrates fairly graphically the economic factors influencing the management of animals in c'iptivity.

MAMMALS The total figures for mammals on exhibit from 1983 through to the end of 1984 were: 47 families, 124 genera, 190 species; of the species. 88 (c.46%) were native and 102 /c.52%) were exotic. The total number of species bred was 81 (42% of the species held); of these 48 (6044 of births) were native and 33 (40% of births) were exotic.

The census data which will be reviewed here cover the years 1982-1984 and are based on reports from two zoos in the northern region, two from the northeast, three from the centre-west, 29 from the southeast and two from the south (Zoologico de Sao Paulo, 1983, 1985). Ellis (1987) reviews the mammalian species reported as having been held or otherwise managed in these censuses. The taxonomy followed here is that of Honacki et al. (1982). In general the scientific nomenclature used within the census conforms to that currently used, but a number of variations have been noted such as probable spelling errors and older scientific names.

Table 9 lists the CITES 1 mammals (Gray-Schofield, 1983) which have been inventoried in the censuses (some of these are also designated as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 1988)). There are 21 native and 32 exotic taxa, indicating that Brazilian zoos are to

CONSERVATION SCIENCE A N D ZOOS 20 I

TAXA (IUCN STATUS) NO. ZOOS 1982

NATIVE Callithrix jacchus flaviceps ( E ) Callithrix j . aurita ( E ) Saguinus bicolor ( I ) Saguinus b. martinsi ( I ) Leontopithecus rosalia ( E ) Leontopithecus r. chrysomelas ( E ) Leontopithecus r . chrysopygus ( E ) Chiropotes albinasus (V) Cacajao c. calvus (V) Cacajao c. rubicundus (V) Cacajao melanocephalus (V) Brachyteles arachnoides ( E ) Chinchilla lanigera dom. Speothos venaticus (V) Tremarctos ornatus (V) Lutra longicaudis Pteronura brasiliensis (V) Panthera onca (Vj (spotted) Panthera onca (Vj (black) Vicugna vicugna (V) Blastoceros dichotomus (V) Ozotoceros bezoarticus

EXOTIC Lemur catta (K) Cercocebus galeritus (V) Papio sphinx (V) Cercopithecus diana (V) Hylobates lar Hylobates moloch ( E ) Pongo pygmaeus ( E ) Pan troglodytes (V) Pan I . schweinfurthii (V) Gorilla gorilla (V) Selenarctos thibetanus Helarctos malayanus Hyaena brunnea (V) Felis temmincki ( I ) Panthera pardus (T) Panthera p . japonensis (V) Panthera p . melas (= fusca) Panthera I . tigris ( E ) Panthera 1. sumatrae ( E ) Neofelis nebulosa (V) Acinonyx jubatus (V) Loxodonta africana (V) Elephas maximus ( E ) Equus przewalskii (Ex?) Equus grevyi ( E ) Tapirus indicus ( E ) Rhinoceros unicornis ( E ) Ceratotherium s. simum Diceros bicornis ( E ) Bos grunniens dom. Hippotragus niger 0ry.r dammah ( E )

2

1 2

1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 2

14 1 1 6

1 1

10 3 1 1 2

14 I 2 5

1 2

11 1

8 3 1 1 2 6 3 2 1 1 3 1 I 1 1

1982 1982 1983 1984 1984 1984 TOTAL BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS TOTAL NO.ZOOS

-

3.4

1 .o 5.1

1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 1.1

1 .o 3.2 1.3

11.5 36.44 27.36

1 .o 0.1

10.4

13.29.4

1 .o 1 .o

11.6 3.3.1 3.1 1 .o 3.3

16.20 1.1 2. I 4.5

1.1 2.2

14.9 1 .o

14.11 4.6 1 .o 3.2 1.2 I .8 2.8 3.3 0.2 1 .o 2.3 0.1 1 .o 2.2 1.1

4.3.1

1 .o 5.5

0. I

1.1

2.2 2.1

3.2

0.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1 .o

8.7.3 5.7

2.0

2.0

1.1

2.2

2.1

1 .o

0.1

0.1 1 4.6.2 3 1.2.1 3 1 .o 1 8.9.4 2

13.7 26.18.4 5 12.10.4 1

1 1 1

1.0.1 1 0.1 1

0.3 0.1 2 1

1.1 1 3.4 4 4.2 4

2.5.2 26.26.1 19 7.7 18.30.1 15

1 0.1 2 2.0 3

1 .o 1 2.2 2

0.1 5.2.4 9 1.2 2 2.1 1

4.3 2 2.0 17.21.1 15

1 .o 1

4.5 6 0.1 1 1.1 1 0. I 1

0.2 10.14.1 10 1

1.1 4.1 3 10.10 7 4.3.2 4 0.0.1 2 2.2 1 1.1 1 1.6 5 4.6.2 3

0.1 2.5 2 0.2 1 1 .o 1 2.3 3 0.1 1 1 .o 1 1.2 1 1.1 1

Table 9. Mammalian taxa listed on CITES Appendix 1 (Gray-Schofield, 1983) which are held in Brazilian zoos, showing the IUCN status (IUCN, 1988) where applicable and births reported for the years 1982-1984.


14X.V B I R T H S 1982 BIRTHS 1983 BlK-IHS 1984 ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~

h, AT1 V F

Culli//iri.x j u c d i i i s (50) 0.0.2 2.6.5 3.4.2 C'ul1ithrr.u j . jucchus (100) 1.1.1 1.0.4 2.1.7 Cul1ithri.v i. pc~tirduru (50) 0.0.2 2.2 4.6.3 Crhuc upc4la ( 100) 2.5.17 4.2.15 4.3.21 .2fjrnimip/iugcrr rrirlacrr.lu (V) 1 .0 0.1 2.1 H>.drochueri.y h>~droc/iueris (100) 3. I .33 0.0.21 3.1.19 Agoiiri 1 = Cimiculiisj pucu ( S O ) 5.2 2.1 I .o. 1 Proc,?.ori cuiicriwrrts (50) 0.0.3 0.0.2 3.6.4 .la.sucr llusuu ( 100) 2.8.23 0.6.9 0.4.25 Fcjlis corzcolor (50) 3.3 2.4 4.5.3 Fdis purtkulrs (V) (50) 1.1 4.2. I 1.2.1 Punrlieru oticu (V) (spotted) (100) 1.0 8.7.3 2.5.2 Purithrru mcu ( V ) (black) 5.5 5.7 7.7 Tu 1'ti.s.\ ii p c w r i / = alhiro.crris) ( 50) 2.2.2 5.0.2 5.3.4 7~rv t i . s . s i t ruluc'u ( 100) 2.8.7 3.6.13 7.7.15 .Mu:mtrti goutroirhrru (50) 1.3 4.8 6.3.1

Puritheru Ieo (100) 24.18.1 18.14.6 24.30.7

( ~ ' e r w . , unicolcir ( 100) 1 . 1 1.1.4 2.5.6 0 ~ i . s tirit..s urgeliu dom. (50) 5.4.2 8.3.2 7.1

F Y O I I C

( ' c r w s &phis (50) 1.3.1 2.3.1 1.2.2

'Numbers in parentheses indicate the minimum population size to be either 50 or 100 individuals. Letters in parentheses indicate the IUCN status ( I IJC". 1988).

Table 10. Mammals with births recorded for each of three consecutive years in Brazilian zoos.

some extent interested in non-native fauna. As can be noted, few taxa have populations of over ten and most are not breeding. The greatest reproductive success appears to be with the large cats, in particular the Jaguar Panrhera onca which is reported as having bred in all three years and is held in the largest number of zoos. The species appears to be increasing in captivity, based on the

figure of 64 births over the three years, but in 1984 the total reported had decreased by 17 animals. Although this can be accounted for partly by the death of 12 individuals over the three years, it still leaves 42 animals unaccounted for. The Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes data show similar discrepancies: the population was reported to have increased by two, although six animals

B I R T H S 1982 ~~

BIRTHS 1983 BIRTHS 1984

1.1 1 .1 13.7

0.1.3 1.1.2 1 .o 1.2 0.0.3

0.1

Table 11. South American mammalian taxa listed by the IUCN as threatened (IUCN, 1988) which are recorded in the SZB censuses as breeding sporadically in Brazilian zoos.


were apparently born and only one death is reported leaving three animals unaccounted for. The general trend appears to be one of decline in numbers, probably due to mortality and to a lack of breeding in most of the species exhibited.

Table 10 lists those species which have reproduced consistently over the three years censused and Table 11 shows the IUCN designated species which have bred sporadically. It is these figures which must be examined carefully to evaluate the possible conservation potential of Brazilian zoos, since repeated breeding is often an indicator of good acclimatisation to captivity, successful pairing and good general husbandry conditions. Table 10 shows that only three IUCN designated animals are breeding frequently, the Giant anteater Myrmecophaga tridactyla, the Ocelot Felis pardalis and the Jaguar

(all categorised as Vulnerable). The two last species have bred at more than one facility. Interestingly, all the species shown as having populations of over SO and over 100 individuals have reproduced in each of the three years except, apparently, Cavia aperea. Of the 88 native species held in 1983/1984, only 16% reproduced successfully in all three years and of these only 8% are considered threatened or endangered. The trend in births does appear to be one of increase from 1982-1984, although this may be the result of improved reporting. The only CITES 1 species listed with a population of 100 is the Jaguar; all other species listed could be considered as common and the Tufted capuchin Cebus apella may be seen as a problematic species owing to its present overabundance. The species with populations of over 100 represent only 5% of the 190 species held

TAXA

~

NO ZOOS NO ZOOS TOTAL BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS TOTAL 1982 1982 1982 1983 1984 1984 1984

Population of 50-100 Callithrix jacchus Callithrix ,j. penicillata Agouti ( = Cuniculus) paca Dasyprocta sp Dasyprocta leporina Myocastor coypus Procyon cancrivorus Felis concolor Felis pardalis Tuyassu pecari (= albirostris) Mazama gouazouhiru Cervus eluphus' Ovis uries argelia dom.

Population of 100 + Callithrix j . ,jacchus Cehus apella Cuvia apereu Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris Nusua nasua Pantheru onca (spotted) Punthera onca (black) Panthera ieo' Tayussu tujacu Cervus unicolor'

3 7

14 7 8 8

12 21 22 14 16 6 8

13 30 3

22 22 22 14 20 21 10

8.4.71 20.20.2 22.36.12 33.24.25 14.14.24 30.27.56 15.16.2 38.37 26.36 31.33.7 27.43.2 20.32.3 24.30.1

0.0.2 2.6.5 0.0.2 2.2 5.2 2.1 5.1.2 6.3.5 0.1.7 0.0.6 0.3.33 1.1.11 0.0.3 0.0.2 3.3 2.4 1.1 4.2.1 2.2.2 5.0.2 2.3 4.8 2.3.1 2.3.1 5.4.2 8.3.2

25.22.3 1.1.2 242.140.12 1 2.5.17

35.46.293 59.64.77 3.1.33 41.69.51 2.8.23 36.44 I .o 27.36 5.5 74.48 24.18.1 63.79.24 2.8.7 40.74.7 1.1

1.0.4 4.2.15

0.0.21 0.6.9 8.7.3 5.7

18.14.6 3.6.13 1.1.4

3.4.2 4.6.3 1 .o. 1 3.1.8 0.0.5 1.1.4 3.6.4 4.5.3 1.2.1 5.3.4 6.3.1 1.2.2 7.7

2.1.7 4.3.21

3.1.19 0.4.25 2.5.2 7.7

24.30.7 7.7.15 2.5.6

2.2.61 4 22.38.3 13 11.11.15 11 6.3.74 11

11.12.30 7 3.6.49 8 9.18.23 13

27.27.14 18 24.17.10 18 28.42.27 15 29.29.7 17 13.26.3 6 16.18.12 9

40.32.38 13 179.1 14.229 26

0.0.1 1 14.14.125 23 42.51.107 22 26.26.14 19 18.30.12 13 61.38.18 21 25.33.96 21 34.69.3 10

'exotic species.

Table 12. Mammalian taxa in Brazilian zoos with populations of 50-100 or 100 or more individuals.

204 C O N S E R V A T I O N SCIENCE A N D ZOOS

1982 POP 1984 POP

1 4 6 48

13 12 36 35

5 7

21 28 I0 21

-

Table 13. Changes in sizes of sporadically breeding populations of Brazilian taxa designated as threatened by the IUCN (see Table 11) in Brazilian zoos.

in 1983,1984. and those with 50 or more individuals represent ~ . 6 % of the total (Table 12).

Discrepancies in reporting are high. This is particularly obvious from an examination of population changes between 1982 and 1984, shown in Table 13 for the IUCN designated species which are breeding sporadically. The data for 1984 suggest that in most cases the populations are relatively stable. A comparison of transaction data, however. seems to indicate that large numbers are still entering collections from sources other than breeding programmes (although the numbers of acquired:surplused animals for 1983 are missing). A more detailed analysis on a zoo-to-zoo basis, as well as species by species. would be required in order to obtain a clearer idea of the trends and possibilities for conservation-orientated breeding programrncs. A comparison of more reliable birth, death and source data would be also be needed for such a review. Tt seems highly likely that each reporting institution is interpreting the column headings differently, for example, some zoos may report births under animals acquired and deaths under animals removed. This is a problem which we discussed with the census managers at Sao Paulo Zoo in order to avoid misunderstanding the headings ourselves.

All the species with populations over 50 or 100 appear to be well represented in collections registered with the

International Species Inventory System (ISIS) at 31 December 1984, as can be seen from the following comparisons: Cnllithrix jacchus: ISIS, 185 (87% captive bred (ch.)); SZB, 177. Cebus apella: ISIS, 121 (70% c.b.); SZB, 522. Cuviu uperea:

( 1984). Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris: TSTS,

ISIS, 31 (94% c.b.); SZB, 200. Panthera leo: ISIS, 422 (88% c.b.); SZB 117. P. OfICU: ISIS, 182 (85% c.b.); SZB, 126. Taj~ussu tajacu: ISIS, 118 (80% c.b.); SZB. 154. Cervus unicofor (exotic): ISIS, 30 (100% captive bred); SZB, 106. When the species with populations of 50-100 or more in Brazilian zoos in 1984 are compared with the numbers in ISIS member zoos (most of which are in the United States, none of which are Brazilian) in the same year, the trend is one of lower populations in ISIS zoos as can be seen from the following examples: Ca1lithri.u j . penicillata: ISIS, none; SZB, 63. Du.sj,procta sp: ISIS, 59 (76% c.b.); SZB, 83 including D. leporina which was not reported for ISIS zoos although D. agirti (in which D. leporina is included by some authors (e.g. Cabrera, 1957)) was listed as 18 (72% c.b.). Agouti (= Cuniculris) para: ISIS, 5 (60% c.b.); SZB, 37, down from 70 in 1982. Myocaster

Procjm cancrivorus: ISIS, 2 (100% wild born); SZB, 50. Felis concolor: ISIS, 182 (65% c.b.); SZB, 68. Felis pardalis: ISIS, 65 (52% c.b.); SZB, 51. Tayassu pecari ( = alhirostris): ISlS, 8 (50% c.b.); SZB,

ISIS, 6 (100% c.b.); SZB 374 (1982), 1

151 (85% c.b.); SZB, 153. N ~ s ~ u nasua:

C O ~ ~ U S : ISIS, 16 (31% c.b.); SZB, 58.


97. Mazama gouazoubira: I S I S , 2 (100% c.b.); SZB, 72. Cervus elaphus (exotic):

(1984). A number of the species have ranges which include the southern United States, which probably accounts for the higher numbers of these species in the ISIS zoos. Comparisons of captive-born versus wild-born animals are not possible for Brazilian zoos; from the birth data it would appear, however, that most are wild caught.

A review of the data on surplused and acquired individuals further supports the theory that the species with populations of over 100 are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to explain the high numbers held. Three examples are: 1. Cebus apella, where 114 animals were acquired in excess of those surplused in 1982 but there were only 24 births and 35 deaths. In 1984 224 were acquired in excess of those surplused, there were 28 births and 35 deaths. 2. In 1982 36 Nasua nasua were acquired in excess of surpluses, with 32 births and

ISIS, 249 (86% c.b.); SZB, 55 (1982), 42

25 deaths; in 1984 63 were acquired in excess of surpluses, with only 29 births and 26 deaths. 3. In 1982 36 Tayassu tajacu were obtained in excess of surpluses, there were 17 births and two deaths; in 1984 34 were acquired in excess of surpluses, births were 29 and deaths ten.

These examples suggest that the majority of surplus individuals are probably of wild origin and not, as is probably the case in most zoos in the United States (as well as Europe and Australasia), captive bred. Additional support for this contention can be gained from totalling the changes within zoos of numbers of the families represented. In 1982 159 Cebidae were acquired in excess of surpluses but only 27 births were reported. Similarly, in 1984 331 individuals were acquired in excess of surpluses, with only 33 births. As the number of reporting institutions decreased by only three from 1982-1984 it would appear that a change in zoo numbers does not account for the large

NATIVE TAXA (MIN. POP. SIZE) SURPLUSED ACQUIRED SURPLUSED ACQUIRED 1982 1982 1984 1984

Callithrix jacchus (50) Callithrix j . jacchus (100) Callithrix j . penicillata (50) Cebus apella ( 100) Cavia aperea ( 100) Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris (100) Agouii (= Cuniculus) para (50) Dasyprocfa sp (50) Dasyprocta leporina (50) Myocastor coypus (50) Procyon cancrivorus (50) Nasua nasua (100) Felis concolor (50) Felis pardalis (50) Punthera oncu (spotted) (100)' Pantheru onca (black) (100)' Tayassu pecari (=albirostris) (SO) Tayassu tajacu (100) Mazama gouazoubira (50)

8.7.3 27.19.21 12.10.5 41.1 I .32

4.4.9 4.10 1.1 2.2.1 1.2.2 1.4.4 4.6.15 2.3 6.4.1 2.0

0.1

4.4

9.4.2 3 1.22.20 15.23.2

112.58.28 0.0.18

13.21.1 8.4.1 0.1 5.4.4 3.4.9 3.3.6

25.3 1.5 6.6

10.5 5.6 1.2 7.7

19.17 3.10

12.5.3 46.3 1.6 27.21.3 82.44.38

6.12.36 6.6

23.9.2 3.3.3 5.4.30 4.7.4

25.21.18 8.7 9.15 7. I6

13.14 3.3 4.4.12

13.11.1

25.30.3 1 10.86.13 57.60.13

182.1 10.96

15.24.45

11.13.1 4.5.1 3.7.15 9.16.12

43.36.48 13.9.6 18.19.2 16.14.3 11.13

10.8.36 37.24.2

1 .o

6.13.18

'The figure of 100 placed by the two colour phases of Jaguar indicates that the two forms together (i.e the species) have a population of more than 100.

Table 14. Surplused and acquired native Brazilian mammals whose populations exceeded 50 individuals in Brazilian zoos in 1982 or 1984.

206 C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D Z O O S

excess of acquired animals. The trend appears to be true of other families as well (Ellis. 1987). The species with the highest populations are also the ones where there was the greatest movement of animals in 1982 and 1984 (Table 14). Also. zoos in Belem, Salvador, Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre all report in correspondence and questionnaires that their average annual rate of animal donations is between 200 and 400 specimens. The animal donations for Sao Paulo Zoo are particularly high, with 200 individuals in 1982 and upwards of 300 in later years just for mammals (Rodrigues, pers. comm.).

With regard to the exotic species the trend is almost opposite to that seen for native species. with Brazilian zoos trading mainly in captive-born stocks. The animals in most collections probably originated from the wild prior to the restrictions imposed following the signing of CITES by Brazil in the mid-1970s. Any importation of exotics that does occur is extremely costly and appears to be limited to the zoos on the industrialised southeastern and southern coasts. The comparative listing of surplused and acquired specimens for exotic species is shown in Table 15; again, the species with populations of above 50 or 100 appear to be those showing greatest movement within zoos (Ellis, 1987). For these species the comparison of births. deaths and surpluses are as follows: Puntherrr Iro (1982) 19 surplused. 16 acquired, 43 births. 18 deaths; (1984) 87 surplused, 19 acquired, 61 births. 16 deaths. Cervus

unicofor (1982) six surplused, six acquired, two births, two deaths; (1984) three surplused, two acquired, 13 births, three deaths. Cervus eluphus (1982) none surplused, 13 acquired, six births, six deaths; (1984) 19 surplused, none acquired, five births, three deaths. In the case of the exotics there appears to be a balance in surplus animals versus births, if not a production of excess individuals whose destination is unaccounted for. As with the avian species there is an extremely active private sector, although it is less publicised and probably smaller, working with a number of native as well as exotic mammal species (primarily hoofstock). The Cercopithecidae appears to be a group that is being acquired in excess of surpluses. In 1984 66 were acquired and only 24 reported as surplus. The families with the highest animal movements and greatest surpluses in excess of acquired individuals seem to be the Felidae, Equidae and Bovidae (Ellis, 1987).

It is possible that the exotic species are receiving greater financial and spacial support in Brazilian zoos because of their high trade and economic value, as well as their value to the public. With Brazilian laws prohibiting the traffic of native wild- caught species, trade in exotic animals may inadvertently be encouraged. Captive-bred animals are legally marketable, but in the conservation atmosphere that exists both locally and internationally this strategy may not receive the proper support. Exceptions may be possible for species such as the

Table 15. Surplused and acquired exotic mammals in Brazilian zoos whose populations exceeded 50 individuals in I982 or 1984.

C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS 207

REGION %TOTAL NATIVE

%TOTAL BORN %TOTAL DIED (%NATIVE) (%NATIVE)

%TOTAL ACQ. %TOTAL SURPL. NATIVE NATIVE

1982 North Northeast Centre-west Southeast South

1984 North Northeast Centre-west Southeast South

100 79 71 74 72

100 14 75 72 71

lO(100) 28(75) 23(69) 26(68) 31(75)

23(82) 24(43) 29(76) 27(64)

20( 100) 34(80) 17( 100) 27(62) 49(68)

36(82) 50(76) 27(84) 36(7 I )

100 100 86 100

100 100 87 86 82 54

100 83 84 93 57 86 82 86 57

Table 16. The native mammalian species held in zoological parks shown as a percentage of the total zoo population in different regions of Brazil in 1982 and 1984, also showing what percentage of the total number of species was born and died (and what percentage of each of these was native), what percentage was acquired and what percentage was surplused.

Capybara, Peccaries and Agouti which are not identified as ‘wild’ in the same way as are the South American primates.

One final comparison which can be drawn from the mammal census is the distribution of species and individuals by region. Table 16 presents a summary of the regional percentages of native individuals in zoos as compared with the total number of animals held, based on Ellis (1987) who tabulated the zoo data by city and by state. The general trend is for the north and western regions to have high percentages of native animals in their collections. The distribution by region of the total number of specimens reported follows a pattern that has the southeastern region at its centre with c.64% of the total number of individuals and c.66% of all exotic specimens reported as being held in Brazilian zoos in 1984. This is accounted for by the high concentrations of zoos in the state of Sao Paulo (Fig. I , Appendix 1). Comparisons of species where births and deaths were reported also show a trend towards a higher percentage of births in the south coupled with reduced mortality. When the figure for total births is examined, there appears to be a general decrease in the percentage of native species born in

captivity. This trend is more noticeable in the southern regions which have the higher percentages of exotic species. In 1982 the native species represented c.77% of all the species giving birth. By 1984 this percentage had dropped to an average of 66% (73% if the north, for which no breeding figures are given for that year, is taken as 100%) of the total, indicating an increasing success in the reproduction of the other (exotic) species. Finally, the southern regions with the higher number of exotics have a lower percentage of native species surplused as well as a lower percentage of native species acquired. All of these data, however, suffer from the bias of regional variations in numbers of zoos, economic conditions and geography, or more appropriately faunal and habitat distribution. Higher breeding success, lower mortality and prospects of greater species management are directly related to the historical development of the Brazilian nation, whose populations spread inwards from the coasts and are concentrated in the southern regions.

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL Halle ( I 985) states that ‘for conservationists to make a real and lasting impact on the way decisions are

CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND ZOOS

no. 29'

?- zoos

Fig. 1. Distribution of zoological parks by Brazilian state (for key to state abbreviations, see Appendix 1). Dark solid line between states indicates regional divisions. Bars are stippled, cross-hatched or otherwise darkened to indicate the states with the same number of zoos.

reached two conditions appear necessary a powerful and identifiable constituency

and a credible platform supporting the cause.' The first condition is met in the zoos of many nations of the world through organisations like the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA), the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, the Japanese Association of Zoological Parks

and Aquariums, the Association of Zoo Directors of Australia and New Zealand, etc. Within Brazil the first condition is being met through the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil which is attempting to unite the profession within the country. This organisation's ability to influence the political leaders of Brazil is evidenced by its involvement in 1984 and again in 1987 with the development of national legislation on the regulation of zoos.

A credible platform for conservation is


still lacking within the Sociedade as of this date. This is not to say that one will not be forthcoming. The AAZPA, established in 1924, identified conservation as the highest priority only in 1979 (see Schmitt, this volume), eight years after becoming a fully independent organisation. With the establishment of this priority the AAZPA then began to encourage the development of an organised approach to the management of species and breeding programmes through projects like the Species Survival Plan and mandatory professional accreditation of member zoos. It was not until 1984 that financial support for the AAZPA’s conservation activities was obtained. Unfortunately, only comparatively recently has education been recognised by a greater number of members as a major factor in furthering conservation work.

The Sociedade was founded in late 1978 or early 1979 during a period of extreme economic change within Brazil. The Sociedade’s initial work has revolved around creating a professional setting for the future development of its members. Regional meetings sponsored by the organisation are continuing to deal with topics such as veterinary care, education, husbandry and nutrition, which are basic to the future development of a credible platform from which the member zoos and their professionals can evolve and support themselves.

The conservation potential of the animal collections is difficult to determine. The collections on the whole can be characterised as lacking direction in that (1) they do not appear to have any organised purpose beyond that of exhibition and (2) many collections appear to be dependent on the inflow of native species. Breeding success does appear to be higher with exotic species than with native ones, at least in the case of mammals. At the same time the native species appear to be exhibiting the highest death rates at 78% as opposed to 22% for exotics. This may, however, simply

YEAR %BIRTHS (%NATIVE) %DEATHS (%NATIVE)

Reptiles 1983 18(100) no data

Birds 1980 14(38) 29(68) 1981 12(48) 28(74)

Mammals 1982 23(77) 29(62) 1984 25(66) 37(78)

Table 17. Comparison of percentage births and deaths reported in the SZB censuses for all taxa in Brazilian zoos, showing what percentage of each is made up of native species.

reflect the high numbers of native wild- caught species being donated to zoos. A summary of overall births as compared to deaths is given in Table 17. The development of self-sustaining populations in captivity is a goal towards which zoos in general are constantly striving (Benirschke, 1985; Rawlins, 1985). In his review of International Zoo Yearbook data between 1964 and 1981 Rawlins (1985) showed that it took zoos 17 years to reach a point where 71% of the rare animals in zoos were captive born. Similarly, ISIS, which published its first taxonomic listing in 1974, reported that by 1984 its 190 members were reporting that 66% of all their specimens were captive born (N. Flesness, pers. comm. 1985). Unfortunately, it is not possible to make such analyses from the census data currently available on Brazilian zoos. Until a greater level of sophistication is reached the analysis of activities within and between animal collections in Brazil will be hampered, at least from the point of view of conservation. Without information on sources and lineages, species survival plans or co-operative breeding programmes should not be started. This information becomes even more critical in the case of the more threatened species with low population numbers in that they may rapidly become vulnerable to problems resulting from


factors such as inbreeding and genetic drift.

Various zoos have attempted to co- ordinate pairings but many of the specimens are not given permanent identifications and often accurate source data are not available. The sexing of avian species is an area where techniques such as laparoscopy would greatly enhance breeding potential in Brazilian zoos, since most birds are unsexed. Exotic species of birds, mammals and reptiles seem to be sent northwards after having been bred in southern Brazil, especially at Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre, with Sao Paulo acting as the main breeding centre. (Interestingly, feral peafowl Pavo cristata and Golden pheasants Chrysolophus pictus (presum- ably descended from escapees from private-sector breeders or possibly zoo stocks) were found by local residents in the Belem area and donated to a local zoo.) This radiation of exotic specimens from southern facilities suggests that a high rate of inbreeding could occur, and may already have done so. Data on survival rates of animals born, and genealogical studies, would be required in order to review the problem. Native species should be similarly studied.

A major difficulty in assessing the possible direction which Brazilian zoos could take arises from the lack of detail in the SZB census data which makes it impossible to understand the specific factors which are affecting current breeding programmes in Brazilian zoos. It is, however, possible to make the general statement that breeding programmes for the more threatened Brazilian species will be feasible only in zoos in the major southern cities such as Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro. For example, staff at the Sao Paulo Zoo are at present carrying out a management scheme for the Golden lion tamarins Leontopithecus rosalia in general and the Golden-headed lion tamarin L. r . chrysomelas in particular (Simon, pers. comm. 1987). This is a regional and individual zoo

programme, although the staff are placing strong emphasis on encouraging the development of other Brazilian zoos as potential recipients for offspring as well as for future breeding groups which are likely to be established in order to ensure the survival of this rare primate. The species is also being well managed at the only other place in the country which houses them, the Centro Primatologia de Rio de Janeiro which is not open to the public. Both management programmes are working in co-operation with international organisations in their efforts to save the species.

The problem of conservation in Brazil is much greater and more extensive than that of individual species, however. Large numbers of psittacines and passeriforms as well as smaller numbers of reptiles, primates and other mammals are being confiscated annually throughout the country and most are probably dying in the process as a result of stress as well as a lack of adequate facilities and management programmes. The success of any programmes which are instigated will be extremely dependent on the development of long-term financial support for local facilities, staff training progammes, equipment, information exchange, etc. in addition to the support needed by the management progammes themselves.

The smaller and more regional zoos would be ideally suited to breeding many native species which are small in size and could be maintained in adequate environments at a relatively low cost. Selection of species for exhibition is, however, often based upon the public image of the zoo as a place showing large and exotic animals such as elephants and lions; in the context of conservation the public image is usually based on the international viewpoint and concentrates particularly on African and Asian species. In order for breeding programmes for native species to succeed, such images would have to be modified. Brazil and most industrialised nations stand today at

C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS 21 1

a point in time where such modifications are possible through a deliberate emphasis on native flora and fauna. The cost of programmes should in the long run be cheaper than breeding exotic species, as the environments needed and the genetic stocks are literally in the back yard. The opportunity for working with native species is good, since almost 100% of reptiles, 70% of birds and 46% of mammals on exhibit are of native origin. The conservation potential in Brazil is therefore promising and the possibilities for innovation are high because through the management of native species zoos could become fully integrated into the country’s Conservation community. This should, in turn, lead to a more stable support base with the provision of needed services and technology. In addition there now exists an extremely strong potential for the development of conservation education projects, co-ordinated both locally and nationally through the zoos of Brazil. The eventual benefit of such programmes would be far greater, in terms of cost effectiveness and habitat preservation, than any single species management programme. Although until recently the only long-term environmental education programme in a Brazilian zoo was at the Parque Municipal ‘Quinzinho de Barros’ in Sorocaba, in 1987 Porto Alegre began to seek funds to set up a regional education campaign for the Vinaceous amazon Amazona vinacea. The educational role of the southern zoos is likely to be of greatest impact because the highest concentration of population and governmental agencies is found in this region. Their global importance should not be overlooked, since the problem of deforestation in Brazil is not a local or regional one.

SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS There are extensive populations of animals in Brazilian zoological parks most of which are not, as yet, being managed for purposes other than exhibit maintenance. The overabundance of

many species and the high entry rate, along with the lack of economic support for breeding local species, would suggest that the concern for most native species is lacking on both the local and international level. This general observation should not in any way be taken as a criticism of the programmes already in existence, such as that for lion tamarins at Sao Paulo Zoo.

The role of zoos in captive breeding of native Brazilian species is difficult to establish. The potential is there, but the traditional image of a zoo as being a place to see exotic species is still a strong influence on the zoo community. Unfortunately, the data on surplus versus acquired animals implies that most zoos are still acting only as depositories for native wildlife. Although the SZB is making some progress towards encouraging accurate record keeping in its members, there is still a long way to go before the basis required for the operation of management plans is established. Another factor which is likely to continue to hinder the development of breeding programmes for native species is the lack of financial resources. Such economic difficulties, and the popularisation of certain species such as the Capybara and some psittacines, will be of no help to the more threatened native species. Locally developed and managed programmes within Brazil will continue to require strong international support in the development of infrastructures for species management as well as for conservation education programmes. It would appear that at present the most valuable immediate potential lies in the area of education and the nurturing of a conservation ethic within the citizens of Brazil. It is they who will support conservation programmes of the future,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work reviewed in this paper was made possible through the financial and professional support of the University of Florida Amazon Research

212 C O N S E R V A T I O N S C I E N C E A N D Z O O S

Training Program, the Wildlife Preservation Trust International, the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brad and the staff of the Brazilian zoological parks. Our thanks to A. S. M. Rodrigues for giving us information on donations to Sao Paulo Zoo. to I. Muniz of the Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal (IBDF) for providing information for Appendix 2, to N . Flesness for providing ISIS species information, to F. Simon for information on the Sao Paulo Zoo programmes. to L. R. R. Puglia of the Parque Zoologico 'Quinzinho de Barros' for information on the Sociedade Zoologicos do Brasil, and to all our Brazilian zoo colleagues who made this work possible.

REFERENCES 41. I L O R I . M P (1972): Biological data and growth of the first horns of the marsh deer, Blasiocerus dichotomus (Illigcr. 181 I ) . Zoal. Gari.. Lp: (N. F.)

BECKER. M (1976): Aspectos que devem ser observados, ao iniciar uma criacao de primatas em cativeiro. Pesyui.wz (Ser. Zoo/ . ) No. 27: 3-14. BELL( O M I P U I . H E & VEINCRT. T (1967): Notes on breeding anacondas Eunectes murbrus at Sao Paulo Zoo. Int. Zoo Yh. 7: 181-182. BENIRSCHKE. K (1985): The genetic management of exotic animals. Symp. :ool. Soc. Lond. No. 54: 71--87. BEST. R c & HARADA. A Y (1984): Habitos ahmenrares do tamandua - 1 (Cyclopes) na Amazona. Resumo Congr. Bras. Zool. 11: 368-369. BOHRER. J L (1979): Urubu-rei: criacao do primeiro filhote. Nut. Revta 6: 4449 . C ~ B R E R ~ . A (1957-1961): Catalogo de 10s mamiferos de America de Sur. Vols 1 & 2. Revia Mus. Argeni. Cienc. Nut. 'Bernardino Rivadavia ' Inst. Nac. Invest. C'ienc. Zool. 4: 1-732. CARVALHO. M M (1986): Encontro de ovos de Cupillaria sp. no sediment0 urinario de urn lobo p a r a f Chrysocyon hrachyurus/ e seu tratamento. .4rq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 6: 26-29. CAI!FIELD. C . (1984): In the rainforest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. COIMBRA-FILHO. A F (1982): OS primatas do Brasil, patrimonio a conservar. Cienc. Hoje l(2): 6249. COIMBRA-FILHO. A F & MAIA. A A. (1977): A alimentacao de saguis em cativeiro. Bras. Florestal

COSTA DE ANDRADA. M . (1986): Captura e transporte de boto da Amazonia ilnia geoflrensisi. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 6: 3 7 4 1 . DEUTSCH. L A (1983a): Contribuicao para o conhecimento da Panthera onca Linne onca pintada cruzarnento de exemplares pintados com melanicos. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 3: 5. D ~ C T S C H . L A (1983b): Contribuicao para o conhecimento do cachorro vinagre iSpeoihos rvnulicus). Ary. Soc. ZOO/. Bras. No. 3: 6. UIAS. J H . P. (1986): Desempenho reprodutivo de

42: 225-235.

29: 15-26.

Cul1ithri.r penicillaia c Calliihrix ,jacchus no parque Zoologico de Ilha Solteira. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. 10th Congr: 2. DINIZ. L s M & DEUTSCH. L. A. (1986): Reproducao e criacao em cativeiro de Chrysocyon brachyurus (lobo guara) no Zoologico de Sao Paulo. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. lOih Congr: 28. ELLIS. J F (1987): Brazilian zoological parks - their status and conservation potenl id . Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Florida, Florida State Museum, Gainesville. FAKLEN. A M.. BORGES DA ROCHA, M. & SIMON. F (1983): Valores hematologicos e sericos de simios Brasileiros clinicamente saos, mantidos em cativeiro. Annuis Primer. Congr. Bras. Primaiol. 1: 321-331. FAVARETTO. L. (1981): Protese de acrilico em bico de tucanucu, Rhamphastos t. toco. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 2 : 15. FEARNSIDE.. P. M . (1984): A Floresta vai Acabar? Cienc. Hoje 2(10): 43. FEDULLO. 1. 0. L. & SIMON. F. (1986): Tcntativa de restauracao de bico em Rhamphastos viiellus viiellus (tucano de bico preto). Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. 10th Congr: 26.

ALVARENGA. L (1981): Relato de um caso de osteofibrosarcoma em primata da especie Cacajao ruhicundus (macaco uacari vermelho). Arq. SOC. Zool. Bras. No. I .

WALLAL'ER. J P (1978): Efeito da gonadotrofina serica sobre a concentracao espermatica de Panthera onca. Arq. Far. Vet. Univ. Fed. Rio Grande Sul 6: 21-24. FILHO. I- R c. &CIJBAS. s (1986): Contribuicao para a manutencao do Bradypus tridactylus (bicho preguica) em cativeiro. Ary. Sue. Zool. Bras. No. 6: 53-55. FLESNESS, N . (1977): Gene pool conservation and computer analysis. h i . Zoo. Yb. 17: 77-81. FOOSE. T. J.. SEAL, u . s. & FLESNESS. N. R. (1985): Conserving animal genetic resources. IUCN Bull. 16: 20-2 I . FRANCISCO. A. F. (1984): Dados preliminares acerca do comportamento e manejo da paca (Cuniculus pacai para criacao em cativeiro. Resumo Congr. Bras. Zaol. 11: 370-371. FRANCISCO. A. de L. (Unpublished): Ubservacao preliminares sobre o manejo do caitotu (Tayassu tajacu): 1-9. Unpublished report to Centro Experimental de Criacao de Animais Nativos, Manaus, L985. GFIGER. ii M (1983): Contribuicao para o estudo do tamandua mirim (Tamandua tetradactyla) em cativeiro. Ary. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 3: 16-18, GRAY-SCHOFIELD, L. (1983): CITES Appendix I species in captivity 1977-1981. Washington, DC: Traffic (USA) & World Wildlife Fund - US. GL'IX. J C C , SALVATI, M.. PERONI, M. A. & LIMA-VERDE, J 1. (1981): Aspectos comportamentais da reproducao de Geochelone carbonaria em cativeiro. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 2: 29-30.

FEDULLO. J D L.. DINIZ. L. S . M.. IWASAKI, M. &

FILHO. 4 . M , TELLECHEA. N. L.. BOHRER, J L. &


HALLE, M (1985): The World Conservation Strategy - an historical perspective. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond.

HONACKI, J . H., KINMAN, K . E. 81 KOEPPLE, I. w. (1982): Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc. & The Association of Systematics Collections. IBGE (1982a): I X Recenseamento geral do Brad - 1980. Rio de Janeiro: Fundacao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. IBGE (1982b): Anuario estatistico do Brad - 1982. Rio de Janeiro: Fundacao Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. IUCN (1988): 1988 IUCN red list of threatened animals. Gland & Cambridge: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. LEAL, R. P. (1973a): Metodos de criacao e reproducao de animais selvagens em cativeiro (Panthera onca). In Symposio Internacional Sobre Fauna Silvestre e Pesca Fluvial e Lacustre Amazonica. Informes de Conferencias, IBDF: IVD-IVD5. Manaus: Ministerio de Agricultura. LEAL, R. P. (1973b): Observacoes sobre acasalmento de oncas pintadas em cativeiro (Panthera onca). Symposio Internacional Sobre Fauna Silvestre e Pesca Fluvial e Lacustre Amazonica, Informes de Conferencias, IBDF: VIIIB-VIIIB5. Manaus: Ministerio de Agricultura. LEAL, R. P. (1976): Alimentacao no zoo. Nut. Revta 1: 1&15. LEAL, R . P. (1986): Dados sobre a alimentacao do Myrmecophaga tridactyla. Arq. Soc. 2001. Bras. 10th Congr: 14. LEMOS, M. (1982): Notas sobre a criacao do Galo das Rochas em cativeiro (Rupicolidae, Aves). Fund. Bras. Conserv. Nut. No. 17: 96-100. LIMA, R. D. M. & LIMA, L. P. (1983): Notas sobre a reproducao de ariranha, Pteronura brasiliensis. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 4: 9-1 1. LINDBERGH, s. M . & SANTINI, M. (1984): A reintroducao do Bugio Preto (Alouatta caraya) no Parque Nacional de Brasilia. Bras. Florestal 57: 35-53. LUCIA DA SILVEIRA, c (1983): Informacao sobre o nascimento de anacas (Deroptyus accipitrinus accipitrinus) em cativeiro. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 4: 21-22. LuCIA D A SILVEIRA, c. (1986): Nota sobre nascimento e crescimento de Rhinoclemmys punctularis (aperema) na Fundacao Rio Zoo. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. 10th Congr: 2-3. LUCIA DA SILVEIRA, c. & ANDRE, c. A. F. (1986): Notas preliminares sobre lesoes no plastrao por fungos e bacterias em Phrynops gibbus. Arq, Soc. Zool. Brasil No. 6: 33-36.

(1984): Censo de repteis - 1983. Sorocaba: Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil.

e reproducao de Crux blumenbachii no Jardim Zoologico do Rio de Janeiro. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 3: 33-35.

NO. 54: 241-257.

LUCIA DA SILVEIRA, C. & COSTA D E ANDRADA, M.

LUCIA D A SILVEIRA, C. & PAIS, J. A. (1983): Manutencao

MOLINA, F. B. (1986): Postura, incubacao e nascimento observados com Phrynops geoffroanus. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. 10th Congr: 13. MYERS, N . (Ed.) (1984): Gaia - an atlas of planet management. Gardencity, NY: Doubleday&Co.,Inc. NETO, P. N. (1973a): A criacao de alguns animais vertebrados Amazonicos de possivel interesse para a alimentacao humana. Symposio Internacional Sobre Fauna Silvestre e Pesca Fluvial e Lacusrre Amazonica, Informes de Conferencia. IBDF: VIIIK- VIIIK6. Manaus: Ministerio de Agricultura. NETO, P. N. (1973b): A criacao de animais indigenas vertebrados. Sao Paulo: Edicoes Tecnapis. NUNES, A. L. v. PUGLIA, L. R. R. (1983a): Contribuicao para o conhecimento da biologia da arara caninde (Ara ararauna) um relato de reproducao em cativeiro. Arq. Soc. Zoo/. B r a d No.

NUNES. A. L. v. & PUGLIA, L. R . R . (1983b): Ocorrencia de Babesiose em lobo guara (Chrysocyon brachyurus). Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 4: 7-8. NUNES, A. L. v. & PUGLIA, L. R. R . (1983~): Contribuicao para o estudo de irara (Eira barbara): um relato de nascimento em cativeiro. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 3: 7-8.

do lob0 guara (Chrysocyon brachyurus) no Zoologico de Sorocaba. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 5:

3: 31-32.

NUNES, A. L. V. & PUGLIA, L. R. R. (1986): Reproducao

17-18. NUNES, A. L. V., PUGLIA, L. R. R. & SANTANA, 1 . R. M. (1986): Reproducao do cisne de pescoco preto (Cygnus melanocoryphus) no Zoologico de Sorocaba. Arq. Soc. 2001. Bras. No. 5: 19-20.

desenvolvimento de filhotes de Crux blumenbachii no Jardim Zoologico do Rio de Janeiro. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 3: 36-38.

recinto para quelonios Brasileiros: sua biologia e arquitetura. Arq. Soc. Zool. Bras. No. 5: 3-9. PICCININI. R . s., VALE, w. G. & COMES, F. w. R. (1971): Criadouros artzjciais de animais silvestres -

criadouro de capivaras. Belem: Ministerio do Interior - Superindente do Desenvolvimento de Amazona (SUDAM). PINDER, N. I. & BARKHAM, I. P. (1978): An assessment of the contribution of captive breeding to the conservation of rare mammals. Biol. Conserv. 13:

PAIS, I. A . & LUCIA DA SILVEIRA, C. (1983): Estudo do

PENACHIONI, L. & LUCIA D A SILVEIRA, C. (1986): Um

187-245. PINEDA, M. D. S. & BERGER, N. M. M. (1979): Pipa pipa:

22-24. uma ra curiosa e pouco conhecida. Nut. Revta 6:

PINTO D A SILVEIRA, E. K. (1975): Hybridismo entre araras. SOM No. 7: 23. PIRES D A SILVA, L. A. (1986): Contribuicao a0 estudo da reproducao da arara caninde (Ara ararauna). Arq. SOC. Zool. Bras. No. 5: 11-15. PIRES, J. M. & PRANCE, G . T. (1978): The Amazon forest: a natural heritage to be preserved. In Extinction is forever: 158-193. Prance, G. T. & Elias, T. S. (Eds). New York: New York Botanical Garden.


IYGLI 1. [ K K & h~ hts. , I L \ (1983): Contribuicao para o conheciniento d o veado cainpeiro

0 : o r o i ~ c w ~ r hc:ocrrric~rrs, reproducao n o Zoo dc Sorocaba. SP. : f r q .Toe. Zoo/ . Brus. No. 3: 22-23. 01 t i K O / T M & LORO. c A I . t (1986): Reproducao de Arckc putii.sc,us putii.scii.i (macaco aranha). .dry. .%JC' Zoo/. Brus. IOrh Congr: 6-7. KANLIIS. c ( i ( (1985): Zoos and conser\ation: the last 20 years. ,S,rnip. : o d Sot,. Lotid. No. 54 59--70. KOIlKI1;L t S . A 5 M 8. F.OSTES. H M (1986): Detalhes do nianjo de L~~iitiropirheru.(us c/ir>.\otwlu.s (niico leao de cara dourada) na Fundacao Parque Zoologico de Siio Paulo .4ry. So(, Zoo/. Brus. IOrh Cotigr: 5 . ~ I \ I O \ . J .\ I ) . I C O S ~ ~ . J (1981): Toxoplasmosis em in ac aco . Lugo r / I r i . ~ Iugo r /iric,/iu. v i vendo em cat i vet r o no Zoologico do Rio de Janeiro. '4rq . Soc. Zoo/. Hrcl.\. No. 1 5k 11. I s (1981). The realities of preserving species in capti\itj In .4tiirtiu/ c , s r i t i c ~ / i o t i . r : 71-96. Hoage. R. J ( E d . ) . Washineton. DC: Smithsonian Institution Press \I[.\% I .\ ( 1986): Reproducao de .4ttio:oticzs vitiueiw (papagaio de peito roxo) no Jardim Zoologico de Belo I lorizonte. .dry. Sue. Zoo/. Bru.~. I O t h CotiKr: I !) I t i i , x J o 11t MI-LLO M (1981): Organizacao de colonia dr saguis em cativeiro. Cirm,. Citlr. 33: 579-581.

oi.it tii<\. L (linpuhlished): ('uprrucr i/i, cui/i/u: 1-1 I . Cinpublished report t o Centro Experimental de C'riacao de Animals Nativos, Manaus. 1985. U.\LL.ACL:K J P (1973): Observacoes gerais sobre o acasalmento e reproducao do tapir amuricano

rris I em cati \eiro. .SInipo.srri /n[i,rnui,iotru/ S ( i / ~ r t , Frrirtio .Si/se.i rrc c Pt,.sc~u Nzi i~ i t r l ij

bfanaus: Ministerio dc Agricultura.

Keintroducao d o C'oiniun lurirostris no Rio Grande do Sul .Arq. Sot,. Zoo/. Brus. No. 5: 1-2. W I D H O L 7 F R . F L 8. koss. u' 4 (1978): Procriacao de cisne de pcscoco preto em cativeiro. .Yo/. R E I . I I 5: 24 /OOLOGiCO Dt BkLO HORIZOhTE (1982): Censo de 1 i w c ~ I Y H I . Sorocaba: Socicdade de Zoologico do Brasil.

uws ~~ IY82. Surocaba: Sociedadc de Zoologico do B r a d /oo~c)(jico U L s,xo mi LO (1983): ('c11\0 t/c

mutmfiwis - 1982. Sorocaba. Sociedade de Zoologico do Brasil. /omo(;ico IX s w P ~ I LO (1985): Crtiso de m r m i / c ~ r o ~ - lYX4. Sorocaba: Sociedade de Zoologic0 do Brasil.

\ i ( l ill^ D4 S I L t 4 . 2 . FRAFICISCO. 4 L & PAlXAO DE

/ . r i < ~ ~ . \ / r t ~ , ~ H I U Z O ~ I / C ~ ~ / , IBDF: VIIIA-VIIIA I I .

W I I > H O I / F R . F- L & !vfEL.O. M I Q (1986):

/ 0 0 1 OGICO D t B F L O HORILO? I t (1983): C('/l.XO d'

A P P t hI ) lX i

The following list indicates the regions, states and touns in which ~ o o s are found in Brazil. The rcgionel divisions are based on those used by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics for population and economic analysis of the country (IBGE. 1982a.b). The zoo locations are based partly on the membership listing of the Sociedade de Zoologicos do Brasil and partly on the results of 12 qucstionnaires. visits to ten facilities and collation of data from the Sociedade's annual censuses published in 1981Ll982 (Aves) (Zoologico do Belo Horizonte. 1982. 1983) and 1982-1985 (Mammals) (Zoologico de Sao Paulo. IOX3. 1985).

.\(Jrr/l<,rti Para (PA): Belcm. Carajas. .4mazonas (AM): Manaus (two zoos plus one which closed in 1984). Acre (AC): Rio Branco.

vo,.rllcYi.Src~rtl Bahia (BA): Salvador. Pcrnanibuco (PE): Recife Piaui (PI): Terezina.

C'twrc- HX.\ I Distrito Federal (DF): Brasilia. Goias (GO): Goiania. Mato Grosso (MT): Cuiaba, Alta Floresta

Soitrlitw I Minas Gerais (MG): Belo Horizonte. Varginha. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Volla Redonda. Rio de Janeiro. Sao Paulo (SP): Americana, Andradina. Aparecida. Aracatuba. Araras. Bauru. Campinas, Capao Bonito. Cubatao. Guarulhos. Ilha Solteira, Jundiai, Lcme. Limeira. Paulinia, Piracicdba. Riberao Preto. Salto. Santa Barbara D'Oeste, S m t o Andre, Sao Carlos. Sao Jose do Rio Preto. Sao Paulo (four T O O ) ) . Sorocaba. Taboao da Serra.

SO I ( r I, Rio Grande do Sul (RS): Sapucaia do Sul. Porto Alegre p, ,imn,i . I (PR): Cascavel, Curitiba, Maringa

C O h S E R V A 7 1 0 N S C I E N C E A N D ZOOS 215

\I"" \ l ) l X 2

1 i \ t ot scientific m d commercial breeders in Brazil officidllq registered with the lnstituto Brdsiieiro de De%n\olvimento Florestdl ( IBDF) in 1986 (bdsed on data from Muniz. pers comm )

I \\I h4MF OF F4CILIT) TOHh (STATE) ~~- ~- __ ~~~-

\ ( I 1 LTIFIC F \ C 1 1 1 1 1 l \ I 2

3 . 3 . . 5 h 7 8 9

10. 11. 12. 13 I 4 I S I h I' 1': I 9 '0. 71.

23. 24. 2 5 . 26. 21. 78. 2Y. 30 31. 37. 33. 34. 35. 36. -37. 3 X 39. 40 41.

42. 11. 41 1s 40. 4;. 48 19 50. 5 1 . 52. 53.

71 - - .

None listed None listed

None listed None listed None listed None listed None listed None listed None listed None lisred None listed None h t e d None listed None listed (closed down) l)i\erie species Di\ersc \pecks Di\crsc \pecies 4rachnidn Serpentes Tui-tles Snakes

C'riimun Itrirrosrrcs Cnimriri /riiirosrri.s Cllinlun !ll/iro,srI'~.r

(' l i i l~ll i t l VlI"fiI'1'

Ciiitwti w u r v ~ ~ ~ l r i ~ t ~ ~ . ~ i l r ~ l l i l . \ ni~yc'r ALes 4 W S A l e \ . A ~ e s . miiinnials 4ccs. m,tmmals Rhtw cinrc,ril~uriu Psittacines Tinaniidae Trochilidae "vfamrnak Primate\ Primates Priniatec Primates

~ ' t l i l ~ l t ~ ? l c I ' l l 1 lJd1/14.\

<'c//Iirhri 'i / U < ' C ' / I ~ I . \

Zoobotanico de Sete Cores (AL) Centro de Operacoes na Selva e Acoes de Comandos

Santuario Zoobotanico Canaa (AM) Torras Brasil, SA Ind. e Comm. de Celulos (BA) Fregona (ES) Prefeitura Municipal-Cascavel (PR) Prefeitura Municipal-C. Procopio (PR) Prefeitura Municipal-Matelandla (PR) Pampas Safari (RS) ClTUR-SC (SC) Fundacao Hermann Weege (SC) CESP (SP) Anhembi S.4 Centro de Feiras e Saloes (SP) Criadouro Elmo (MG) Fac. Canoenses Widholzer (RS) Neto. Goiania (GO) Neto (SP) Instituto Butantan (SP) Carrasmaschi (DF) Courtois (RJ) Ama7onia Repteis (PA) Pinto Widholzer (RS) Antonio Widholzer (RS) SARANA - Agropecuaria (GO) Stoll (MS) EMBRAPA (MG) Amazonia Repteis (PA) Carlos Keller, Pirassununga (SP) Claudio Jaconi, Viamao (RS) Lianete. SA. Brusque (SC) Pedrotti e Onzi Ltda. Osorio (RS) Ademar Marra, Tapirai (SP) EMPARN, Pedro Avelino (SP) Nelson Kawall. Sao Paulo (SP) Companhia Energia de Sao Paulo, Pdraibuna (SP) SENAC. Vitoria (ES) Serrana SA de Mineracao (SP) Fundacao SESP (PA) Schwarz (PR) UFBP Samiguel (PE) Centro de Primatologia do Rio de

Universidade Federal de Ceara (CE)

( A M )

Janeiro-DECAM 'FEEMA, Sao Cristovao (RJ)

ri/hrti , Cchits apellii Universidade de Brasilia (DF) Universiddde Federal de Minas Gerdis (MG) Gdttdss UFRJ (RJ) Hospit'il Lauro Souzd Limd (SP) EMBRAPA (MS) Fdc Ciencids Agrarids do Pdra (PA) Casdrin and Widholzer (RS) ESALQ (SP) IEF Cdrvaiho (SP) Inst Ndcional de Pesquisas Arnazonicas (AM) INPA (AM)

216 CONSERVATION SCIENCE A N D ZOOS

APPENDIX 2.

TAXA NAME OF FACILITY, TOWN (STATE)

COMMERCIAL FACILITIES a. None listed EMPARN (RS) b. Snakes c. Snakes d. Snakes e. Caiman crocodilus, Melanosuchus niger f. Caiman yacare. Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris g. Caiman yacare Vila/Breyer (MS) h. Bothrops moojeni. Croralus durissus i. Didebhis sp j. Callithrix jacchus. C . j . geoffroyi, C . j . penicillata Schwarz (PA) k. Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 1. Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris INAMBIMS (MS) m. Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris Pinto/Widholzer (RS)

Syntex do Brasil Ind. e Com. (SP) LEMA Biologic do Brasil Ltda (MG) Pentapharm do Brasil Com. e Exp. Ltda (MG) Amazonia Repteis (PA) Lima e Silva (MS)

MAFRA/Marinho (SP) Esberard (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) (RJ)

CAP Santa Barbara (MG)

Manuscript submitted July 1987; revised May 1988

Int. Zoo Yb. (1988) 27: 216-222 0 The Zoological Society of London

Attempts by The Wildfowl Trust to re-establish the White- winged wood duck and the White-headed duck Cairina scutulata and Oxyura leucocephala

M. L. OUNSTED Head of Developments, The Wildfowl Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester GL2 7BT, Great Britain

The true value to conservation of reintroduction through aviculture has often been debated. Many of those who voice criticism are looking at the subject in relation to an ideal world, in which reintroduction would have no part to play. The critics range from Meltofte (1987), who suggested that most programmes could be abandoned immediately, to Matthews (1973), who warned that while reintroduction is acceptable as a last resort measure, it should not be entered upon unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly.

There seems to be general agreement that the basis for considering the feasibility of any reintroduction scheme must be the existence of protected habitat which once sustained the species and which in changed circumstances has the capacity to carry a self-sustaining population. Beyond this consensus the opinions of conservationists are divided as to the desirability, methodology and value of proceeding with a reintroduction programme.

Such projects require the co-ordination of a multitude of skills and the project

animal collections in brazilian zoological parks

Documents