The Reptile House at London Zoo: the beginning of the end

News that London Zoo was to start the process of planning a new reptile house appears to have evoked little response other than in the zoo enthusiast community which, in general, has expressed regret at the loss of the old one. The plan, as reported, is for the new one to hold only 29 species—all for captive breeding of species of conservation concern, plus a new house for Galapagos tortoises, while the old house is to be retained for purposes yet to be decided.

Views of the current Reptile House have varied over the decades from its opening in 1927. It was groundbreaking in terms of design, control of environmental temperatures and provision of ultraviolet radiation but a common view in the 1950s and 60s was that it was a deathtrap for its reptilian inhabitants (it had soon been established that it was too hot for many amphibians). Design of the house was attributed by the besotted Peter Chalmers Mitchell to Joan Procter with the architect Guy Dawber being demoted in importance to having added the fancy bits. By contrast, Solly Zuckerman thought Joan Procter overbearing, over-rated and over-promoted.

Entrance to the Reptile House, 2011
Photograph by William Hook via Wikimedia

Original plan of the Reptile House
The Times 15 June 1927

It is true that the mortality rate of reptiles at London Zoo was very high in the early decades of the reptile house’s existence. in 1946-48 the annual death rate was 45.4%; in 1956 it was 68%. In other words two-thirds of the inhabitants were dying within the year. I do not know the extent to which the environments afforded by the house were responsible. However, it is worth pointing out that many reptiles and amphibians arrived from abroad both for zoos and animal dealers in very poor condition. Animals were often unfed and unwatered for long periods and kept in crowded, unsuitable conditions before being shipped. Reptiles take a long time to die and can reach a stage of irreversible metabolic damage. No matter how well they were treated on arrival the outcome was inevitable. The great advances in reptile husbandry (and in the veterinary treatment of wild animals) of the 1970s and 80s was still to come. From being unable to breed nearly all species in the 1950s, private herpetologists led the way in devising the means of doing so. Zoos generally followed that lead but it was clear that the Reptile House was not ideal for use as a breeding setup even with the best efforts of the keepers at the time. Furthermore, the building was getting tired with much of the old equipment unusable; for long periods of its existence there was not enough money available for even minor improvements. Even 20-30 years ago it was evident to many of us that the Reptile House needed to be replaced in order to provide accommodation commensurate with the great advances made in keeping reptiles during the 1970s and 80s and with providing staff with better facilities for incubation of eggs and the raising of young animals to adulthood together with showing visitors these processes in action.

I am therefore delighted to hear the plans for a new reptile house. I do though share the concern of comments I have read that plans are being made for only 29 species. That announcement cuts to the heart of the matter about the role of zoos in the 21st century. Should the collection comprise only those species in actual or potential need of captive-breeding programmes? Or should they be there to educate the public about the diversity of animal species? How much public ‘entertainment’ in the way of common but popular species or ‘immersive’ exhibits is it necessary to include in order to attract the paying public in sufficient numbers and thereby support financially the conservation and educational efforts within the zoo and in the wider world?

These strategic questions and the arguments for and against each scenario are not new and will continue to engage informed—and much uninformed—opinion. On the ground it is difficult for the majority of zoo visitors to appreciate how many of what were major collections, including London Zoo, have destocked in terms of number of species and of individual animals kept. Keeping the discussion to reptiles and amphibians, in the years 1949-51 London Zoo had 221 species; in 1957 there were 168 while in 2020 the number was 59.

What concerns many people I know is the lack of a comprehensive collection of reptiles and amphibians in Britain. With so few native species, these animals are the least known and, despite decades of educational effort, the most reviled. They need to be seen in the flesh in all their diversity. Television just does not cut it. There is a real opportunity for imaginative displays, some with ‘reversed daylight’ to show the diversity, adaptations and breeding of reptiles and amphibians and why they are an important part of the natural world.

The days though of going to the Reptile House first to see what was happening and what was new—a common trait amongst many of us whose first interest was reptiles and amphibians—seem numbered.