BY STEFAN SEITZ

Across cultures and continents, when zoo-goers notice a tapir (Tapirus sp.), they are likely to misidentify it. This is not surprising. The tapir's stocky body, short proboscis, and multi-hoofed feet make it look like `something between' [an Asian myth says that the white-saddled Malayan tapir is a mixture of everything left over after the creation of the rest of the animals (Sanborn and Watkins, 1950)], and because people tend to categorise a new object in terms of what they already know, the tapir is often misclassified. These misidentifications could shape the way we educate zoo-goers.

Many zoo-goers, upon seeing a tapir on exhibit or its picture on a signboard, will make spontaneous statements. In the sixteen hundred hours I spent in front of tapir enclosures recording animal behaviour and visitor reactions (Seitz, 1998a, b), I recorded many of these statements.

I observed all four species of tapir in various combinations at the following zoos:

During my observations, I recorded at least 2,000 misidentifications by zoo-goers of the tapir. These misidentifications encompassed 79 species (Table 1). The size of these numbers can be attributed partly to the fact that many misidentifications were offered by children, who might be more imaginative than adults, and also less likely (or able) to read signs. Yet these numbers are, if anything, too small: some misidentifications were so common before I began recording them that I had to estimate their number, and to be safe I underestimated. Zoo-goers' misidentifications of the tapir fall into four categories:

(1) Calling the tapir by an incorrect name: `This is an anteater.'

(2) Comparison with another animal: `He looks like a pig.'

(3) Suggestions of what the tapir might be: `Is it a cow?'

(4) Slip, detected and corrected: `An okapi – uh – tapir!'

Note that Table 1 ranks misidentifications from most frequent to least frequent. Also note that these misidentifications, being from the zoo-going public, are couched in non-scientific language; the names are usually non-specific, such as `rhino', rather than corresponding to a particular species, such as `black rhinoceros' or `Diceros bicornis'.

All tapir species, by all young and adult visitors in all zoos I observed, were by far most frequently mistaken for the anteater. Although anteaters are rarely seen in zoos, visitors seem to have an idea of what these creatures are, possibly because many books show pictures of anteaters.

The second most frequent confusion occurs only among German speakers: `nose bear'. This is the literal translation of Nasenbär, the German name for the little-known coatimundi. A significant linguistic difference between the two most common misidentifications is that no native English speaker ever confused a tapir with a coatimundi; the closest American approximation to the German `Nasenbär' occurred when a visitor to the Los Angeles Zoo invented the term `nosed bear'.

The tapir's conspicuous snout triggers many misidentifications. Because elongated snouts are characteristic of ant- or termite-eating species, the termite-eating aardvark (rank: 11) is invoked, but less frequently than the anteater: only by adults, and predominantly by English speakers. Twice, a tapir was even misidentified as an ant lion (rank: 43). The layman usually does not distinguish between a snout, a nose, and a trunk, so the prominence of the tapir's snout also causes the following misidentifications: elephant (rank: 6), rat (rank: 34), duck-billed platypus (rank: 38), and mole (rank: 73). To bridge the obvious differences in size between these other prominent-nosed species and the tapir, children often modified the names with prefixes, e.g., `giant rat' or `baby elephant.'

Tapirs are compared with bears by adults, and confused with bears by children, quite frequently; in the descending rank of misidentifications, bears hold eighth place in general. However, they leap to second place in the case of the mountain tapir (T. pinchaque). This remarkably different misassessment of the smallest, most delicate tapir species may be explained because of its bearlike appearance: longer, woollier, reddish-brown to almost black coat; short tail; round ears.

Many misidentifications are applied to the Malayan tapir only. Because of its remarkable coloration, the Malayan tapir is compared with the giant panda (rank: 10, exclusively by children). The black-and-white colour of this tapir also gives rise to misidentifications of polar bear (rank: 41) and black panther (rank: 53). Another pattern of linguistic confusion similar to `nose bear' appeared to be forming in regard to the Malayan tapir; this species' white belt, or saddle, may have been the cause of many Germans' referring to it as a Gürteltier (`belted animal'), or armadillo (rank: 18). However, for reasons that are unclear, one German also applied the term `Gürteltier' to the uniformly-coloured lowland tapir.

The tapir was also often confused with the okapi (rank: 9). The probable reasons behind this confusion are threefold: the okapi is a rare species, it has a conspicuous colour, and it was discovered even later than the tapir species. Many visitors say about the tapirs, `They were discovered late,' which points out the potential parallel. (The history of animals' discovery is sometimes included on zoo signage.)

Young tapirs with `watermelon-like' stripes and spots – and young tapirs only – remind zoo-goers of zebras (rank: 24), wild boar piglets (rank: 25), giraffes (rank: 46), and leopards (rank: 55). The tapir's rounded back, as well as its trunk (supposed by many zoo-goers to be used for digging), give rise to comparisons with pigs (rank: 3), wild boars (rank: 5), and hogs (ranks: 16 and 62). The hippopotamus, which is related to the pig, ranks fourth. Indeed, in 1766 Linnaeus first described the lowland tapir as `Hippopotamus terrestris' (Eisenberg et al., 1990).

The hippopotamus's association with water may lead to the other water-loving animals with which the tapir is confused: manatee, or `sea cow' in German (rank: 17), and capybara, or `water hog' in German (rank: 36). The tapir is also confused with the sea elephant (rank: 51) and sea lion (rank: 52). Surprisingly, the tapir is also called a seahorse by some visitors (rank: 42), but this is not a new confusion: the first specimen exhibited in Amsterdam in 1704 was designated `seahorse' (Kourist, 1973). However, although tapirs are related to horses and love water, the term `seahorse' never became a common name for tapirs.

Confusions with donkeys (rank: 15) and horses (rank: 27) are not particularly abundant, but tapirs are often compared to, or confused with, rhinos (rank: 7). These closest relatives to the tapirs owe their name `rhinoceros' to the fact that they display a horn on their nose. Perhaps for the sake of clarity we should call tapirs `no-horns'?

Some misidentifications are based, not on the tapir's bodily structure, but on certain postures or other changeable features. Tapirs sometimes sit like dogs (rank: 23). Furthermore, several times children confused lowland tapirs in a lying position with hares (rank: 21) or lions (rank: 22). On the other hand, the tapir's inactivity, coupled with the smell of tapir excrement near some enclosures, led to rare confusions with sloths (rank: 33) and skunks (rank: 47). Several people called the tapir a babirusa (rank: 12); but although three tapir species were misidentified this way, the misidentification occurred only at the two zoos where the babirusa enclosure directly adjoined the tapir enclosure.

Reasons for some misidentifications remain unclear. The term guinea-pig (rank: 14), which was used only by German children, might be based on the guinea-pig's German name, Meerschweinchen, literally `sea piglets', which suggests a water-loving, pig-like animal. But guinea-pigs are popular as domestic pets, so it is surprising that children would make the confusion. And the misidentifications of monkeys (rank: 19) and kangaroos (rank: 29) remain unexplained. The general problem with these misidentifications is misassociation. That is, zoo-goers might recognise the tapir's name, but they don't necessarily accept the tapir as a member of the family Tapiridae. Rather, zoo-goers often take the tapir for a species of pig or anteater. After all these misidentifications, one might ask: Are there any species that zoo visitors do not confuse or associate with tapirs? The answer is: Yes – for now. For example, I never recorded a confusion with the takin (Budorcas taxicolor), although its name sounds similar and in some cases it is kept in the same zoo as the tapir. Maybe this artiodactyl ungulate from the Himalayas needs even more public attention than tapirs do!

A genus misidentified as 79 different animals is obviously not well-known, but just as obviously is of interest to zoo-goers. The fact that zoo-goers are at least interested enough in the tapir to attempt to identify it should encourage zoos in their educational efforts. And this education is important – the species with which the tapir is confused show that not only do many people have trouble identifying or remembering the tapir, they therefore have trouble identifying or remembering other animals as well. After all, what zoo-goer who knew beyond a doubt what wart hogs were would ask if a tapir were a wart hog?

It is possible, too, that in urbanised areas, knowledge of indigenous species is decreasing. Tapirs were confused with wild boars and hares, both of which are indigenous to certain countries, and both of which do not flourish in urban areas.

In this context, children's education is particularly important. Children's education depends primarily on school and on family. Yet both these educational opportunities can be inadequate. The quality of school-based education depends on the quality of the teacher's knowledge. And I heard many kindergarten and primary-school teachers misidentifying tapirs.

The educational efforts of parents sometimes seemed better than those of teachers. Some parents gave suggestions spontaneously (`Look how the tapir is wobbling its nose'), or answered their children's questions. On the other hand, other parents gave wrong information or even refused to answer (`That's too complicated for you'). So parents provide both constructive and destructive examples. Some children, for their part, are bored (`Let's go on! I want to see the lions'), while others like the tapirs. A three-year-old girl at Berlin Zoo even correctly recited the names of the individual tapirs there.

One possible way to correct misinformation, combat boredom, and encourage interest among young zoo-goers would be for those who give educational tours at the zoo to increase the interactive element of these tours with `thought questions'. For example:

These approaches could even be tailored to the misidentifications reported for each individual zoo, so that each population's misinformation is explicitly targeted.

Confusions and comparisons of tapirs with real species do not sufficiently represent people's wealth of ideas. There are, of course, lots of artificial terms given to these animals, e.g. `scraper-neck tapir', `vacuum cleaner bear', and `truffle pig', that cannot be considered in this article. Zoo-goers at the above mentioned zoos were also counted as they passed the exhibit or asked to complete written questionnaires. A forthcoming publication will discuss the results. I would like to set an example of how visitors can be included in zoo research – an idea first pointed out by Hediger (1969), which has not yet been adequately carried out.

If you wait long enough, in every zoo you can find people watching, photographing, or painting the tapirs. An actor even studied the behaviour of these animals at Zürich Zoo; he had to play a tapir. Some people have become so fascinated that they call tapirs their favourite animals. In fact, tapirs' public popularity is on an upswing.

Terwilliger (1978), Williams and Petrides (1980), Janzen (1982), Bodmer (1990), Santiapillai and Sukohadi-Ramono (1990), and Downer (1996) have investigated free-ranging tapirs. A few zoo studies have included behaviour (Richter, 1966; Mahler, 1984) and environmental enrichment (Sharpe, 1997; Penning, 1998). The following information about projects involving tapirs is necessarily incomplete, but it shows an increasing interest in these endangered species that is essential for their conservation.

1. Field research based on radio-collared individuals, photo traps, or signs (i.e. tracks and dung):

2. Many of these research projects are encouraged and supported by organisations:

3. There are some children's as well as non-fiction books featuring tapirs:

4. Films exclusively made on tapirs are rare, but several documentaries show shorter sequences about tapirs:

5. Even commercial interests have discovered tapirs:

Tapirs are becoming presentable.

To benefit from this new public enthusiasm, zoos should check whether this new potential money-maker is sufficiently spotlighted: are tapirs specifically included in guided zoo tours? Represented in gift shops (e.g., stuffed toys, postcards)? Mentioned in reports for the news media? This is one instance in which self-interest and conservation can coincide.

I cannot end this article without giving basic zoological information about tapirs (cf. Frädrich, 1972; Eisenberg et al., 1990; Todd and Matola, in press). It is presented in rhyme to make it more memorable. This idea is not a new one; the alphabet itself is set to music, and children learn to sing it at an early age. So, as they begin to be interested in animals, rhythm and rhyme might help them remember more complex facts.

TAPIR:

I would like to thank the directors, curators, veterinarians, researchers and animal keepers at Berlin Zoo, Dortmund Animal Park, Heidelberg Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, Munich Animal Park Hellabrunn, Nuremberg Zoological Gardens, Wuppertal Zoo, and Zürich Zoo for supporting my project; and the numerous visitors to these zoos for not being silent. Many thanks are due to members and institutions of the University of Heidelberg, to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Heinz F. Moeller, to the Association of Friends and Supporters of the Zoological Museum for sponsoring my trip to the U.S.A., and to Dipl.-Biol. Heike Bierlein for proof-reading.

I offer many thanks to Sheryl Todd, President of the Tapir Preservation Fund in Palisade, Colorado, U.S.A. (http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/) who generously helped with suggestions; to Kate Wilson, also of the Tapir Preservation Fund, for her professional rearrangements of poetry and prose; and finally to the advertising agencies of Holger Schmid and Werner Otreba in Mannheim, Germany, who provide my homepage for free: http://www.onservice.com/STS/stshomepage.html.

Dipl.-Biol. Stefan Seitz, Zoological Institute I, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 230, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (E-mail: s75@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de).